According to the energy economist Phil Verleger, a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would raise about $140 billion a year. If I had that money, I’d devote 45 cents of each dollar to pay down the deficit and satisfy the debt hawks, 45 cents to pay for new health care and 10 cents to cushion the burden of such a tax on the poor and on those who need to drive long distances.
Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry, by strengthening the dollar through shrinking oil imports and by helping to shift the burden of health care away from business to government so our companies can compete better globally. Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from countries that have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs and by increasing our leverage over petro-dictators, like those in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, through shrinking their oil incomes.
In sum, we would be physically healthier, economically healthier and strategically healthier. And yet, amazingly, even talking about such a tax is “off the table” in Washington. You can’t mention it. But sending your neighbor’s son or daughter to risk their lives in Afghanistan? No problem. Talk away. Pound your chest.
I am not sure what the right troop number is for Afghanistan; I need to hear more. But I sure know this: There is something wrong when our country is willing to consider spending more lives and treasure in Afghanistan, where winning is highly uncertain, but can’t even talk about a gasoline tax, which is win, win, win, win, win ”” with no uncertainty at all.
So ask the person making minimum wages trying to support themselves if a $1.00 a gallon or $10.00 a tank tax would affect them. Or the family on food stamps trying to share one car for work if they think it’s a good idea. Tax gas (and I assume this is diesel as well) and the cost of public transportation also rises.
Sure in theory “wow we can get all this with just $1.00 a gallon!” turns into ‘but people won’t be as able to buy gas if we raise the price too much’ and the recession gets worse. Revenue from tourism also suffers.
It’s similar with taxing cigarettes — in Florida sales of cigarettes are falling, as people go up to Georgia or Alabama or the Seminole reservations to purchase their smokes.
Taxing is NOT the answer to economic stimulation.
Jim Elliott
continued:
And comparing raising taxes to sending troops to Afghanistan? Seriously? Apples to tire irons.
Libraryjim, you couldn’t be more correct. A $1 tax on gas would be extremely regressive – the $200,000 salaryman or woman driving a 750BMW wouldn’t feel it the way a retail worker making $20,000 would.
Does any person with more intellect than a potted plant actually believe that in the current environment [i]any[/i] of the tax would be dedicated to retiring debt? Hello. There is a dignitary in Nigeria who needs your assistance in returning a fortune to its rightful owner.
[b]The problem is not insufficient taxes, it is excess spending.[/b] $100,000 of federal money to pave the parking lot at a $3.5 million swimming pool our town of 5000 people never needed? $203,000 annually to support the Alabama Peanut Queen Festival. [i]Ad nauseum.[/i]
There is one, and only one, way this problem will be solved. An amendment to the US Constitution reading:
“Except in times of declared war, the federal budget of these United States shall remain in balance at a level not to exceed 17% of the previous calendar year’s Gross Domestic Product. An additional amount of up to 3% may be collected for the unique purpose of retiring existing federal debt.”
the quality of Friedman’s columns (sop to China, solar power delusions, and this) seems to be tracking with Obama’s approval rating….
Bart Hall, I agree. If we spent as much money on Defense as Russia did, we wouldn’t need to raise taxes at all. I admit, I’m glad someone in your community got the money, rather than Blackstone, Corp.
It is a regressive tax, but a wise one. People would have to make different choices, and perhaps buy more efficient cars. The prices wouldn’t go up $1, because demand would go down.
However, people do have a right to be lazy, harm the environment and be dependent upon oil. I guess that’s a part of the American dream, eh?
#6, so the single mother who has to drive twenty miles to her waitress job is lazy? For all that progressives get excited about ‘mass transit’ they seem to ignore the reality of how expensive it is in time and money as well as completely unavailable for vast swatches of the country.
John — the Russians spend much more than they officially state, and we spend a bit more than we officially state as well. I speak decent Russian, now about 40 years rusty, and their military has monumental problems at even the unofficial expenditure rates.
Maintenance is in horrible shape — Kursk, and others — and not so long ago several sailors died of starvation, starvation!, at the Vladivostok naval base.
Are you suggesting that US military expenditures should slip back to similar levels? The total US defence budget is on the order of $600 billion annually, by which we guarantee freedom of the seas, freedom of the air, and global trade. As a percentage of global GDP that’s less than 1%, so it’s quite a bit cheaper than standard commercial hazard insurance.
The problem is that Germany, France, Britain, Brazil and such are not paying their fair share of that commercial insurance. India and Japan, BTW, are …
A parking lot at the local swimming pool, or the Peanut Queen, or Mr Murta’s airport are not in the national interest. National defence, however, is in our national interest and is one of the very few things the federal government actually should be doing.
[Intemperately expressed comment deleted by Elf]
We should tax gas more;it is more a national security issue than a environmental issue, but it should be gradually raised so we could adjust our habits avoiding most of the tax increase through more efficiency. And as far as spending it; how about on failing infrastructure to increase productivity for the next generation?
[url=http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252509527]Tom Friedman’s[/url] mask slips.
Okay…how about this… I’ve finally found something I have in common with liberals: We both want to run my life.
How short-sighted these posts seem to be. Most of our oil is imported as a foreign product, much of it from countries that do not like us and certainly do not share our values. Fully $50 billion a year flows out of this economy to these other countries. I wonder how much of that money ends up purchasing the weapons used against our troops. Remember, the Bin Laden family is still in the oil business.
If the price goes up by $1.00 a gallon, (as it did the last two years), it is like a tax placed on us from foreign countries (Does the power of OPEC ring any bells). That $1 price increase is potentially another $25 billion out of our economy to these other countries. Does it not make sense for this money to be used in our economy before it gets siphoned off to these other countries and so change our behavior, before more serious price shocks disrupt our own economy?
I believe our country has a duty to use tax policies to change the behavior of Americans to reduce the harm and security risk caused by our over consumption, particularly the use of foreign oil. Many more energy-efficient cars are coming made by American workers. We ought to embrace a policy that has us willing to invest in these cars and to increase American jobs because of energy savings, at the expense of a product that benefits our enemies. That is our patriotic duty.
Our public transit system stinks. We are totally addicted to big cars and driving. Driving is subsidized to the hilt. Remember clover leafs? They worked fine but weren’t as quick. So instead with spend gazillions to build unbelievably complicated overpass systems. The cost of first Gulf war should be included in subsidizing driving. It was all about keeping Kuwaiti oil flowing. I am against raising taxes, but I am also against subsidies that shoot us in the foot, artificially keeping demand high, sending money to our enemies.
That revenues will decrease in the future is a feature not a bug.
#12, that makes as much sense as hitting yourself in the head with a hammer before your neighbor does.
This tax revenue would be poured down the same federal rathole as the rest. Anyone remember Synfuels?
14, What is your solution to the foreign oil problem? I’d rather have a consumption tax than an income tax any day, particularly one on a foreign product from dubious countries.
Count me in on that. I actually had an op-ed published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the topic of getting rid of the income tax in favor of a national sales tax. A great idea, IMHO, particularly if it’s a flat rate across the board. I don’t think the federal government has any business telling us what to buy or not to buy.
The solution could be opening up domestic production, not to mention encouraging domestic oil shale and prompting the Canadians to develop further the oil sands.
I can manage a consumption tax on imorted oil by driving an energy=efficient car. I cannot control an increase in my income taxes. In other words, if a tax increase is coming, I would like it to be on foreign oil and so hasten our move to consumption taxes.
And the higher oil prices will benefit the local shale oil industry you mentioned.
“Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit,”
– why is there a deficit?
“by stimulating the renewable energy industry,”
– why aren’t you looking for US oil?
“by strengthening the dollar through shrinking oil imports
– if you lower demands, you lower revenues.
“and by helping to shift the burden of health care away from business to government”
– ah, I see – it’s a backdoor way of paying for Obamacare. Got it. But the ‘burden’ is never on the government, it’s on the taxpayer.
Taxes make up the vast majority of the cost of gasoline (petrol) in Europe – and the UK government has a terrible deficit.
What’s my solution?
Drill here, drill now, pay less. That may not solve the problem for the long term, but it will at least buy us time to develop WORKING and AFFORDABLE alternatives.
I haven’t studied the issue of domestic production in any depth. Do we know that there is sufficient oil in the United States to offset materially dependence on foreign oil in any time frame that is meaningful. What is the cost? Would such measures just kick the policy can down the road and leave us dependent (after significant expenditures) at a later point on the time line.
Getting back to Friedman’s initial point. Taxes on gasoline do have advantages if they are managed properly. They are true use taxes that not only penalize oil consumption, but also directly measure wear and tear on infrastructure. The problem noted by other commenters is a real one, however. There has to be a way to ensure that the monies are used for the purposes intended and not just slopped into the gaping maw of federal (or state or local) profligacy. There also has to be some mechanism to protect lower income persons (who, for reasons of economic and financial limitation) often live farthest from job sites.
Taxes on gasoline do have advantages if they are managed properly.
Ah, there is that devilish little detail! Since when has the Federal Government demonstrated its ability to manage the massive funds it confiscates – oops, strike that, Elves! I mean appropriates – from its citizens? If that were so, why would the current President and former President Carter have been making the unsupported promise that they will/would fund their programs from governmental “fraud, waste, and abuse”? (not that any former President other than the late Reagan, God rest his soul! made any vague attempt at that).
No, the Federal Government’s true skill is that bookkeeping that would get a plethora of CPAs in very hot water with their ethics board, and publicly-traded companies hauled before the courts and the SEC. I speak, of course, of the way in which the Feds have used the Social Security trust fund.
Rather than run crying to the government to fix this problem (or any other), how about it if we stop name-calling “business” as the bogeyman, and instead encourage the development of ALL energy alternatives? If the French can manage nuclear power, why can’t we?
Probably the worst thing about the proposal is that it is regressive–it would impose a greater tax burden on the poor as a percentage of income and low income worker than on the well to do.
The idea of “balanced budget” amendments is laughable. Texas has such a provision written into its Constitution. And yes, the legislature has to adopt balanced budgets. But the legislature also issues billions of dollars in revenue bonds and forces many expenditures down the line to the counties, cities and other taxing entities.
The reason we have an $11+ trillion dollar national debt is that since the founding of the country the Congress–elected by ‘We the people’–has consistently appropriated expenditures without raising the tax revenues to pay for those expenditures. This is nothing new. The country has [b]always[/b] been in debt. (And yes, I know that there was a very brief period over a century ago when we were [b]almost[/b] out of debt.)
I doubt that the proposed gas tax would have much of an impact on public transportation–which is generally exempt from federal taxes–other than to increase ridership.
Yes, there is a serious economic problem with our dependence on foreign oil. That also has grave national security issues associated with it. However, the answer is not “drill here, drill now”. No, there is not enough oil in the ground in the U.S. to sustain our demand for oil for more than a few years–after which, the deluge.
The other problem with the “drill here, drill now” is that, in order to produce any significant amount of oil, it will drive up the cost of gasoline at the pump. I know that is counter-intuitive to those whose study of economics is limited to the so-called “Law of Supply and Demand”. The problem is that there is another law in economics that says with increased production the per unit cost of production rises. While increased supply may drive down retail cost where demand is constant or falling, the cost of increasing that supply per unit rises. Eventually you reach a point where the cost of production exceeds the market price–at which point producers stop producing because it is no longer profitable to produce. Retail prices then rise, unless demand falls, because demand exceeds supplies.
The reality in the oil business is that the “cheap oil” in the U.S. has, for the most part, already been tapped and depleted. The “new oil” is further down in the ground, in more difficult locations in which to drill (even if restrictions were removed) and harder to extract–all contributing to increased cost per unit of production.
Back prior just prior to 2008 when oil prices rose sharply, there was little drilling in the U.S. because, again, the cost of drilling increased the cost per unit of production above the market price. When oil soared to nearly $150 a barrel, there was a flurry of domestic drilling activity (so much so that the price of well casing soared and the casing itself was hard to find). When the recession hit full force the international price of oil fell to around $30 per barrel. Guess what, domestic drilling ground to a halt because it was no longer profitable to develop new domestic oil. We are now at a point where some domestic exploration is near a break-even point, but nowhere near a point for a boom in exploration and development. Some companies–like Exxon-Mobil–which have lots of dollars in the bank are drilling because they anticipate that at some point in the not too distant future, international oil prices will rise to that $150 per barrel level again and they will be able to put those wells into profitable production.
And this is not the end of the story either. We not only import foreign [b]crude[/b], but we also import refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. Why? Well, because we lack the domestic refining capacity to meet the current levels of domestic demand. So even if we increase the production of crude, we have no way to turn that into fuel. Now if you are willing to have an oil refinery in your backyard [b]and[/b] the price of diesel fuel and gasoline rises to a level so as to make it profitable, oil companies will build that new refinery in your backyard. But more domestic crude, diesel and gasoline will be available if, and only if, you are willing to pay much higher prices at the pump.
And yes. Exxon-Mobil loves the way things are.
I would support a buildup to a $1 tax on gasoline. However, as this article indicates, a portion of the revenues ($0.10 the author suggests) would have to go to tax-relief for the low income taxpayer so that they can still afford to drive.
15. aldenjr asks:
[blockquote]What is your solution to the foreign oil problem? I’d rather have a consumption tax than an income tax any day, particularly one on a foreign product from dubious countries.[/blockquote]
1. Invest in alternative energy sources: solar, wind, nuclear, waste and even bio-fuels so long as they don’t compete with the food chain.
2. Invest in mass transit.
3. Increase reliance on domestic natural gas.
4. Invest in energy efficient buildings and homes.
5. Invest in pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities.
6. Stop subsidizing the automobile.
7. Reduce idle time of planes in airports.
Maybe a different approach is in order:
a) Begin to convert much of our diesel fleet (trucks and trains) to run on di-methyl ether. DME can substitute rather easily for diesel with minimal off-the-shelf conversion. DME can be generated from coal, natural gas, or bio-mass.
b) Immediately waive environmental permitting for the construction of several new refineries capable of processing the heavier synthetic crude from Alberta and Saskatchewan. At present there is but one refinery in the US capable of processing the stuff and it is owned by Hugo Chavez — Citgo, Houston.
c) Begin construction of several significant coal refineries designed to produce primarily liquid motor fuels.
d) Begin construction of nuclear power plants for the express purpose of replacing every single oil-fired plant in the nation.
e) Rapidly replace oil-based home heating in the Northeast.
f) For the interim, re-commence production from long-idle off-shore well, now that spill prevention technology is vastly better than it was 40 years ago.
Within five to eight years we can be largely independent of all imported energy, with the exception of that coming from Canada. Mexican oil fields are collapsing in any case and have but a few years of remaining useful life.
Windmills, solar, and pixies on trampolines cannot possibly get it done, and unless you’re willing to have 80 million people concentrated into southern Minnesota and Wisconsin — the equivalent of Germany — neither will attempting to force people to use rail.
We are the Saudi Arabia of the world when it comes to coal. We should use coal and nuclear energy for our electrical plants and use shale oil and domestically produced oil as well as electricity for our vehicles. We should also be using Stirling Engine technology for our power plants. Bio-diesel is also a very promising technology…if we use algae and soy oil to produce it rather than corn.
25. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) wrote:
[blockquote]Maybe a different approach is in order:[/blockquote]
I don’t have any particular problems with your suggestions. Some, actually appear in my list of suggestions.
I do assume that Bart is prepared to have those oil and coal refineries located in his Kansas backyard.
[blockquote]Windmills, solar, and pixies on trampolines cannot possibly get it done, and unless you’re willing to have 80 million people concentrated into southern Minnesota and Wisconsin—the equivalent of Germany—neither will attempting to force people to use rail.[/blockquote]
I was not aware that there is any large number of pixies on trampolines in southern Minnesota and Wisconsin. I’m not sure why we would need to concentrate 80 million people there in order to utilize solar and wind power.
Certainly shifting home heating in the north from oil to gas (or other sources of energy) would be good. It occurs to me that prior to oil, coal was big for this. I can remember the black snow in the Ohio of my childhood. Switching from oil to gas should be as big a deal as switching from coal to oil.
Solar and wind power are already being used in many places. The Southwest is capable of producing large quantities of electricity from both sources.
What probably needs to be added to my list of recommendations is to invest in a modern electrical grid to move electricity from places where it is produced to where it is consumed and shifting supplies and demands.
[blockquote]neither will attempting to force people to use rail[/blockquote]
Of course $5.00 a gallon gasoline (or its equivalent) which we have already seen, does make people switch from cars to mass transit. Ridership in DART buses and light rail dramatically increased here last summer, as well as new commuter lines from surrounding counties to Dallas/Ft. Worth. It has fallen some with the advent of cheaper gasoline, but not to pre-2008 levels. That switch will occur regardless of what the government does unless we insist that the government subsidize automobile transportation at even higher levels than at present.
Gas tax pros and cons have been explained above. But I would favor a higher tax on cigarettes, all of which to be designated for building bike and walking trails all over cities and towns. Just think of it: gasoline (or whatever energy autos are using) consumption would go down, because folks would finally be able to ride bikes or walk to work on these trails (and they would do that, if trails went to work areas from residential and housing areas); smoking would go down, so less disease and less healthcare costs; exercise would go up (just from using bike or walking for work transportation) to produce greater preventive healthcare so less healthcare costs. There would be other advantages, as well, as there are always unexpected consequences. And who can complain about cigarette taxes – because there is absolutely nothing good about smoking, which even smokers admit. What about a $1 per pack on cigarettes – or more? And since the tobacco companies went out and hooked the rest of the world on cigarettes, let’s put an export tax on cigarettes as well. I don’t think we can imagine what good could be accomplished by ridding much of the world of cigarette usage.
NB for Billy: Obama and Congress have already drastically increased tobacco taxes. Taxes on tobacco have been skyrocketing for decades, in fact. Health care costs have risen greatly in the period. So how do you square those two data?
#29, obviously they have not raised cigarette taxes enough. Smoking is still rampant in many areas of the population. My son takes home only @$21,000 a year and totally supports himself, but he still has money to buy cigarettes when he wants them. I know people who live only on SS income who still smoke heavily. I see guys on construction jobs, who I know make less than $35,000/year, if that, who smoke the whole day long on the job.
I know this is anecdotal evidence and I have no statistics, but I also know that very few paths or trails have been built with the money from tobacco taxes, and of those I know that have been built in my area (from other taxes), none of them go to employment centers, but rather all were built only for recreation.
Well obviously everything you disapprove of must be taxed into a state where only the wealthy can afford it, your delicate sensibilities being of utmost importance to society, but that wasn’t my point. My point was the amount of money governments at all levels have extracted from smokers has been skyrocketing over the decades and the number of people smoking has decreased considerably, yet healthcare costs are still skyrocketing. Why is that? Not enough bike trails?
You do realize that everyone is going to die from something, do you not?
How about a political rhetoric gas tax? That should generate a lot of revenue. How about a political lobbying tax. That should generate even more revenue.
Then we could have politicians and pundits speak into tubes connected to huge turbines, which would turn and generate electricity.
🙂
#32, that’s the best idea on this thread yet. Isn’t how Chicago got its name, “the windy city.”
#31, I have no idea what you are talking about – “delicate sensibilities.” But you did make my point – “not enough bike trails.” Obviously, healthcare costs are controlled by many things other than decrease in cigarette smoking. My point was and is, if we are going to raise taxes on something and move society in a certain way by tax policy, why not up taxes even more on cigarettes. There simply is nothing good about them, so why not tax them out of existence, if we are going to use tax policy in this way. It will be hard to tax gasoline out of existence, but cigarettes, now that’s a different story.
And #31, how come we have to die of something? You must subscribe to the philosophy that the difference between a pessimist and an optimist is that a pessimist has more facts.
Maybe some people enjoy smoking, Billy. Did that ever enter your thinking? Is there some reason to punitively tax these people to appease, dare I say, your delicate sensibilities? Why not museum admission, opera performances, movie tickets? Heck just look at all those people hurt on bikes every year…I think we need a tax on helmets, shorts, tires, etc. No?
And if you have a formula for eternal (physical) life, we’d all love to hear it.
#34, again, don’t know what you mean about “delicate sensibilities.” My point, again, IF WE ARE GOING TO USE TAXES TO MOVE SOCIETY IN CERTAIN WAYS (it’s as good a way as any, I suppose, but I’m not wed to it – it’s better than simply outlawing something, from a personal freedom standpoint), then let’s tax things that have no redeeming social value, like cigarettes. There are redeeming values to museums, opera, movies (most), bikes, helmets, shorts, tires, gasoline, “etc.” So your question about taxing them doesn’t make much sense to me.
As far as a formula for eternal life (physical), I hope you will go back and read my email and see if you can’t see a little tongue in cheek (pessimist has more facts than optimist?? hit a funny bone anywhere?). But if you are a smoker, I am sorry. You need to quit for longer life, though “possibly” not eternal (physical) life – ok, I’ll admit it for you – no physical eternal life. Now I’m a pessimist, too.
But I’m confident Jesus loves smokers as much as non-smokers – but I’m also confident He would want smokers to quit.
[Comment deleted by Elf – aggresive tone towards another commenter, comparison with fascism and linking to information on the same. This is a final warning.]
Then ban me now. I”m not sugar-coating the truth. It’s what gotten your church in the stew it’s in now. I won’t have it happen to my country.
Billy, I see no redeeming value to either opera (‘Carmen’ is about a prostitute) or Ballet or rap for that matter. And the last time I bought a ticket to a concert, I was charged a transaction tax!
So who’s view of ‘redeeming value’ are we going to use when deciding taxes on ‘detrimental’ goods? And when we run out of those, do we then tax goods/services with redeeming value because we have gotten used to having the money those others provided? When is ‘enough’ enough?
Less taxes, less spending, smaller government, more freedom.
AS to the idea that $5.00 a gallon gas led to more mass-transit use, that was only true in areas that HAVE mass-transit systems! Not here, where ‘Star Metro’ is a joke, and not in rural areas like our neighboring counties where mass-transit does not exist AT ALL.
Jim Elliott
Hey Jeffersonian — have you considered starting your own blog? I would read you!
34. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]Why not [tax] museum admission, opera performances, movie tickets? Heck just look at all those people hurt on bikes every year…I think we need a tax on helmets, shorts, tires, etc. No?[/blockquote]
I’m not sure about museum admission and opera performances, but there is an entertainment tax on movie tickets. And I have paid taxes on my bicycles, helmets, shorts, jerseys, tires, tubes, tools, etc.
38. libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]Billy, I see no redeeming value to either opera (‘Carmen’ is about a prostitute) or Ballet or rap for that matter. And the last time I bought a ticket to a concert, I was charged a transaction tax![/blockquote]
Carmen isn’t about a prostitute; granted she was promiscuous, but there’s no indication that she sold sexual favors. She did work in a cigarette factory, which I suppose makes her evil.
Some opera is about the triumph of good over evil (for example Fidelio and the Magic Flute). Some opera is about the tragic consequences of evil (for example, Carmen and Othello). Something of the same thing can be said of ballet.
I don’t know whether I pay taxes on my opera and symphony tickets–it is possible that an entertainment tax is included in the ticket price.
[blockquote]AS to the idea that $5.00 a gallon gas led to more mass-transit use, that was only true in areas that HAVE mass-transit systems! Not here, where ‘Star Metro’ is a joke, and not in rural areas like our neighboring counties where mass-transit does not exist AT ALL.[/blockquote]
Dallas has an emerging transit system which is growing. There will be light rail near me soon. Other areas already have it. There was a dramatic increase in the use of both light rail and buses here last summer. There was also a whole new system of commuter buses which was introduced between Denton and Dallas by Denton County. Those buses are still running.
I’ve lived in a number of rural towns. It is true that mass transit doesn’t make sense in those towns. However, there is no reason why one could not use a bicycle or even walk to get around those towns. I have done so. There needs to be better mass transit between towns, though.
Just a reminder Ken, I’ve lived in one town and worked in a neighboring town for 4 years, with about a 30 mile one way drive. No bus service from one to another. There are people in Tallahassee or North Florida who work in Georgia (and vice versa) but no transit from one to the other except for car. And no, no opportunity for car-pooling, either. Usually when I was going TO Quincy, Quincy residents were driving TO Tallahassee! I was what they called a ‘reverse commuter’. You have to go where the jobs are, and that does not always mean uprooting the family and moving. Sometimes the commute is the best option, family wise.
And I lived for a time in Wyoming. The nearest grocery store from Sundance was in Spearfish, SD, 35 miles away. Quite a few people in the town made that trek at least once a week or more. the nearest pediatric dentist was in Rapid City, 90 miles away.
That is the reality in America. We are still more of a rural population than you think. Would a rail system work in these areas? Perhaps, but I suspect that like the north Florida Route, it would be dropped for lack of customers as well as customers avoiding it for unreliable time-tables.
JE
[blockquote]Hey Jeffersonian—have you considered starting your own blog? I would read you! [/blockquote]
Thanks, Sarah, I’ve considered it but I have too much fun reading and commenting on other blogs. I may one day, but not now.
Yesterday morning I filled up my car at $6.55 per US Gallon, and while distances are shorter in the UK than the US, that kind of figure has become a deterent to gas-guzzling cars, trucks, etc., and frivolous driving. Sure, I don’t like it, but such costs stimulate several things — the upgrading of public transportation, the encouragement of cycling and walking, and the development of more fuel efficient vehicles.
At the beginning of this month the gasoline tax was raised for the third time since I came here two years ago, by about 5 cents. Yes, that hurts, but it helps to pay for the expenditures necessary to stabilize the banking system and pick up the pieces of the economy. This is vital to Britain where a far larger proportion of the country’s earnings come from financial services and banking. Whether anyone agrees with the way the crisis has been handled or not, the bills still need to be paid — unless you believe in vodoo economics.
The US is in danger of getting way behind the curve on the whole issue of alternative energy if it continues to be determined to stick to yesterday’s way of powering its life. This will just keep dragging the economy down rather than being pioneers and entrepreneurs who seek better ways of doing things. One of the things that I have been impressed while living back in Europe is just how seriously efforts are being made to wean ourselves off of imported energy
#37 “Less taxes, less spending, smaller government, more freedom.” Actually, this is empirically not the case. Rights that have any value, cost money to defent. Our market system itself requires a whole engine of the state to protect. One could argue that the purpose of our military is to protect market rights. It’s very expensive.
A right to property includes funding fire departments and police departments. WE don’t pay them on a fee-for service basis because we apply a social value because fires catch. We become “socialists” in order to protect the common good. Of course, some person might say that he shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s fire problems because he’s been smart enough to keep his house fire resistant.
“Big bad government” does exist, especially when government is outsourced as a business (see Jack Abramoff). As Thomas Frank noted in The Wrecking Crew, the last people you want to run the government are people who don’t want government to work.
Liberty requires taxes. Otherwise, the only person who has liberty is the person who’s got the most guns and the most wealth.
LJ, #37, first let me say that I agree the least amount of taxes we can pay the better, though obviously we have to pay taxes to run the things private industry can’t run like military, regulation of banks and business, diplomacy – all those things left to the Fed gov’t by the States in the Constitution. But, and this is a big but, we have an activist Federal government and we have had for quite some time. I would prefer it use tax policy for its activism, than to outright outlaw certain things. There is certainly a reasonable argument that can be made to totally outlaw cigarettes. Other than someone’s enjoyment, as Jeffersonian pointed out, there is nothing good about them, and that use of cigarettes does cause health harm to others and costs us taxpayers for treatment of tobacco-related diseases and fires that are started by smokers, to name a few problems with enjoyment of cigarettes. But I would rather use tax policy to decrease their use than take away a freedom to choose cigarettes from our citizens.
A gas tax is not in the same arena, to me, but I understand using tax policy on gas consumption for an economic reason. Gasoline is not a bad thing – it is just apparently a non-renewable resource. So using it up, while not looking or finding substitutes for it, is not a good thing. But taxing it a little more, in order to slow down its use until substitutes can be invented, discovered, whatever, is not that bad an idea to me. The bad part of it is that it hits those, like LJ, harder than those who don’t have to drive as much, those without alternate means of transport (like mass transit) or those with smaller incomes. Other means, like tax credits or gas coupons can be used to help balance out the scales in those areas.
I’ve enjoyed this. Thanks for the repartee. Billy
Certainly taxes are a necessary evil. Perhaps even government is a necessary evil. But both are necessary. Most of us do, I suspect, believe that anarchy is not a viable alternative. And while we may praise the sterling virtues of the Individual, the facts are that (a) we are fallen individuals, (b) we live in a society of fallen individuals and (c) what we, as individuals, do affects on others in that society for weal or woe. At least one aspect of government is the need to circumscribe what others may do that affects me individually; it is also true that in order to do that, government must circumscribe what I may do that affects others. In the context of the cigarette “debate”, every one’s right to smoke ends where my nose begins.
As a matter of fact, government has always sought to regulate individual behavior through, among other things, tax policy.
For those constitutional purists, some of the original constitutionally allowed taxes are Duties, Imposts and Excises (Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph). What are Duties, Imposts and Excises?
Duties and imposts are more or less the same thing and have a common purpose–and that purpose is [b]not[/b] to raise revenue for government. Some of our strict constructionist friends want us to believe that in the late 18th century, our founding fathers were capitalists and even that Adam Smith was a capitalist. They weren’t. They were mercantilists. Mercantilism basically holds that the “wealth of the nations” depends on the accumulation of gold bullion. Under this economic system the idea was that the value of exported goods and services exceed the value of imported goods and services. To achieve this end one imposes “duties and imposts” on goods and services so as to make them very expensive and to discourage folks from buying foreign made goods and services. (And yes, that led to trade wars.)
An excise tax is a tax levied on specific goods and services. The gasoline tax is an excise tax. So are taxes on tobacco, alcohol. (Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?) And historically, excises on tobacco and alcohol have been what are termed “sin taxes”–i.e. a tax intended not so much as to raise revenue as to reduce consumption. Supposedly the gasoline tax funds roads and bridges used by vehicles that use gasoline as fuel, although they do not these days pay for roads and bridges.
So even back in the good old days of Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson and the like, tax policy was used to effect behavior. Today the tax deduction that middle and upper class home owners love is that for home mortgage interest. And why is that deductible? Well the federal government wants you to borrow money to buy a house.
[blockquote]#37 “Less taxes, less spending, smaller government, more freedom.†Actually, this is empirically not the case. Rights that have any value, cost money to defent. Our market system itself requires a whole engine of the state to protect. One could argue that the purpose of our military is to protect market rights. It’s very expensive. [/blockquote]
Actually, it’s not. What I pay for police, courts, fire departments and other basic government services (though fire departments need not be public entities) is a tiny fraction of what I pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, etc….i.e. things that the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose on us. The military is 1/5 of the federal budget, and about 1/3 of what the feds spend in transfer payments annually just taking money from one pocket and putting it in someone else’s.
I find it interesting that, in the context of arguing in favor of collectivized health care the port side menaces us with the specter of no police, prisons or courts as if we can’t possibly have one without the other. The “Washington Monument” tactics continue unabated.
46. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]What I pay for police, courts, fire departments and other basic government services (though fire departments need not be public entities) is a tiny fraction of what I pay for things like Social Security, Medicare, etc….i.e. things that the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose on us.[/blockquote]
This notion of strict construction of what the federal government has constitutional authority to do really does get interesting. The things that the constitution enumerates are found in Article I, Section 8–specifically what Congress has the authority to do.
If we take an absolutely strict construction of the language there, the federal government has no police authority–no FBI, no BAFT, etc. It can “provide for the PUNISHMENT of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States”–but there is nothing about Treasury agents to investigate, arrest and prosecute counterfeiters. And there is certainly nothing about other forms of federal police powers.
Congress can “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” but it has no enumerated power to control immigration–so forget about controlling our borders. And certainly Congress has no constitutional authority to build a fence along our international borders.
Congress can “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. But it has no authority to build highways and bridges (other than for the U.S. Postal Service), provide air traffic control of intrastate fights, assign broadcast frequencies, build flood control dams and levies, provide for the reconstruction of cities damaged by hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or earthquakes.
It has no power to rescue people in boats in distress or to protect property in disaster areas. The Coast Guard can presumably guard the coasts from external naval attacks, but much of its work is beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutional authority.
It cannot insure bank deposits. It cannot insure the safety of food or drugs. It cannot regulate monopolies, conspiracies or securities.
There can be no national parks or monuments–and certainly no federal park rangers.
Of course Congress has the express power to do two things decried by constitutional “conservatives”–the power to lay and collect taxes and to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Interstate highways were allowed because President Ike, fresh from Europe and observing the autobahn, presented it as vital to national defense — a means to quickly deploy troops from one area to another in times of national threat. That everyone could use them is a side benefit. Also allows interstate commerce!
Banks? Interstate commerce.
Reasonable taxes are one thing. Taxes to support trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending is another thing entirely.
You have a point on the National Parks/Park Service. That is one area I am willing to concede.
You earn the ‘split hair’ award, however, for stretching things beyond the pale.
[b]Provide[/b] for national defense, [b]promote[/b] the common welfare.
48. libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]Taxes to support trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending is another thing entirely.[/blockquote]
Many of the “unconstitutional” things Congress does are, in point of fact, necessary for the national defense. For example, federal funding for education has long been done because it was discovered about a century and a half ago that there were too many young men who lacked the basic education necessary to be suitable soldiers. In recent years the emphasis of federal government in math and science education has to do with development of military technology. There is also increasing recognition that an educated citizenry is necessary for vigorous commerce. This is just one of many examples of so-called “unconstitutional” federal activity in fact quite clearly related to defense and commerce.
[blockquote]You have a point on the National Parks/Park Service. That is one area I am willing to concede.[/blockquote]
Sorry, but under a strict construction of the Constitution, you can’t have national parks. For that matter, there’s nothing there to give the federal government authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory, the Gadsden Purchase or Alaska–so you’ll have to give them back to France, Mexico and Russia.
I might also suggest to you that a number of American wars had nothing whatever to do with the national defense–notably the Mexican War, the Spanish American War and, quite recently the Iraq war.
I might suggest to you that health care for children is vital to the national defense on the grounds that sickly children do not make good soldiers. Or universal health care is vital to interstate commerce because sick people are not productive workers and bankruptcies due to catastrophic medical costs interfere with commerce.
I would also argue that Congress does have the authority under Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution to pass laws that promote the general welfare, to levy taxes for programs to promote the general welfare and to borrow money to promote the general welfare.
[blockquote]You earn the ‘split hair’ award, however, for stretching things beyond the pale.[/blockquote]
Thanks for the award. But if you are going to insist on a narrow construction of the powers of Congress, then you need to be consistent about it.
[blockquote]Provide for national defense, promote the common welfare.[/blockquote]
That’s in the Preamble. Article I, Section 8, begins with these words (emphasis added):
[blockquote]The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and [b]provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States[/b]…[/blockquote]
and concludes with the words
[blockquote]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/blockquote]
Oh, come on Ken, can’t we just get along and compromise? You agree I’m right, and I’ll agree with you that I’m right, and everything will be just fine.
(After all, that’s how the Democratic party defines bi-partisanship and cooperation.)