Michigan democrat proposes 50-cent-per-gallon gas tax

[Manedwolf]

Were democrats dropped on their head as children or something? Seriously.

Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas

 A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339589,00.html

If they want that so bad, why don't they, themselves, donate their own money every time they buy gas? No, no, they must have mandated wallet rape for all!

RAISE TAXES! It's the democrat way! 

[charby]

I think a tax deduction for vehicles that achieves over 30 MPG would probably fly a lot better than a .50 per gallon tax.

[Manedwolf]

I think a tax deduction for vehicles that achieves over 30 MPG would probably fly a lot better than a .50 per gallon tax.

Democrats never lower taxes. They're addicted to them.

[Paddy]

Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works.  If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops.  Use the money to develop alternate energy sources.  That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.

[Manedwolf]

Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works.  If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops.  Use the money to develop alternate energy sources.  That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.

So you've become a democrat now? Given your hatred for Republicans, I'm not surprised.

TAX THEM! TAX THEM ALL! TAXES PRECIOUSSS.... 

[Werewolf]

50 cents, a dollar? Doesn't matter. The demand curve for gasoline is so inelastic that people will buy what they need regardless of the cost. There is no other altenative.

Mass transit - nice thought but it isn't gonna appear out of thin air.

Really fuel efficient autos - again nice thought but overnight they're not gonna be here.

Cars that don't use gas - their energy comes from somewhere and my bet it would be electric. What do most electric plants burn to make electricity - a petroleum product and since the conversion losses from petroleum to electricity and back into auto motion is more than from petroleum to gas to motion going electric isn't gonna solve anything.

Hydrogen - when someone comes up with a cheap way to extract it then yes but once again the infrastructure to deliver it isn't gonna appear overnight.

All that dingell will accomplish if he pushes this thru is to guarantee he won't be reelected.

And on and on. Americans are addicted to having a personal means of transport. Not gonna give it up without a fight. All tacking extra taxes on that transport is gonna do is tick off the people.

[Paddy]

Actually, my position is strongly pro American and very patriotic since the purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.  That would be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

[Standing Wolf]

Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going?

Don't you just hate it when people start following the money?

[MechAg94]

Actually, my position is strongly pro American and very patriotic since the purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.  That would be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

And you purpose is misguided for that tax won't do anything of the sort.  I noticed that you didn't say you wanted to put an import tax on foreign oil.  The problem is that our own government is the biggest impediment to domestic oil development and production.  You are asking the robber to guard the bank. 

You are also punishing a lot of poor and middle class blue collar workers for your misguided dream of reducing foreign oil dependence.  Who do you think is paying that extra tax?  Look at all the small towns and industrial areas that haven't seen a public bus in their history.  Look at the low income blue collar guys driving 10 year old trucks.  Do you think they can all afford new low mileage cars? 

I work in Freeport, TX.  No bus service here.  There are chemical plants all over this entire area with associated service companies and contractors.  There are plants all up and down the Texas Gulf Coast.  None of those industrial areas have bus service or trains or anything.  There are thousands of workers around Beaumont, the Houston Ship Channel, Freeport, and Corpus Christi that would have no choice but eat that cost.  Think about who you are going to hurt before you think up these stupid taxes. 

My uncle is a pipeline welder.  He has to dive his truck and welding machine at the jobs.  Part of the way things are done.  No battery operated car is going haul that.  My Dad is retired now, but he was essentially a construction foreman for a fire protection company.  He had to drive out to the plants to be at work.  He used his truck on the job. 

I think some of you have really warped views of who it is that is driving around.  It isn't all yuppies driving their big SUV downtown.

[El Tejon]

I completely support this idea, but it needs to be $5 per gallon.

There are far too many people on my roads (I pay enough taxes that I have purchased them all).  Get back in your wagon mouth-breather and off my roads!

[MechAg94]

I say get rid of all the obstructions of domestic development of oil sources.  Drill on Federal land, drill offshore on each coast.  Drill oil all over the world and use it up.  When it is gone in a couple hundred years, we will move on to something else. 

[Sergeant Bob]

John Dingall is one of the most pro gun Democrats in Congress. probably more so than a large share of the Republicans. This is a pretty good example of what can happen if you are a one issue voter.

[johnster999]

Gas tax hikes would accomplish nothing. I'd rather see tax credits for replacing gas hog vehicles with fuel efficient vehicles.

[grampster]

I've got a better idea.  Why don't we insist that the conservationists in our government get the hell out of the way and authorize the reasonable exploiting of the oil we have within the borders of the US of A as well as off the coast of California, in the Gulf of Mexico and under the Great Lakes.  Then build a few more or enlarge a few more refineries as well as building some nuclear power plants and rescinding the law that prevents the recycling of the 95% of nuclear waste that is recyclable.

If there had been enough commons sense, guts, and brains to get on that bandwagon in 1974 when it became obvious that importing energy was going to be a drag in years to come we'd have solved several problem; two of which would have been energy independence and all the middle east would have meant for the world was it would be a good place to buy rugs and bet on camel races.

PS: Along with the above we'd have built several more nuclear plants and build and elevated, high speed electric train system as many, many wise people were and are (still) talking, but not doing anything about, we'd have a state of the art cheap way of traveling around the country.

[roo_ster]

Actually, my position is strongly pro American and very patriotic since the purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.  That would be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

Uh, nope.

Socialist means to a "patriotic" end. 

[Paddy]

You are also punishing a lot of poor and middle class blue collar workers for your misguided dream of reducing foreign oil dependence.  Who do you think is paying that extra tax?  Look at all the small towns and industrial areas that haven't seen a public bus in their history.  Look at the low income blue collar guys driving 10 year old trucks.  Do you think they can all afford new low mileage cars?

And why is that?  What happened to the middle class blue collar worker's prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's?  Where did it go?  Why could one man working a blue collar job back then raise and feed a family and make a house payment?  Could it have something to do with what was done to him by his government during the 80's?  Why do the multinational corporations hold labor in so much contempt, they'd rather ship it overseas than pay an American an honest wage?

I've got a bunch of other questions for you, but I'd like to hear your answers to those.

[grampster]

 
"And why is that?  What happened to the middle class blue collar worker's prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's?  Where did it go?  Why could one man working a blue collar job back then raise and feed a family and make a house payment?  Could it have something to do with what was done to him by his government during the 80's? "

Nope!  That was caused by the Radical Feminist Movement which sold the song and dance that a woman was not complete unless she had a career other than being the anchor that held the family together.  (Before anyone gets their undies in a bunch, I support equal pay for equal work; always have.)  That movement, rather than being a vehicle for equal pay for equal work and supporting the value of being a mother/homemaker, over time, dumped millions of new workers into the work place and caused a large increase in demand.  That caused prices to rise because of the Law of Supply and Demand.  Over time the economic shift from one worker in the household having the ability to support the family turned into the need for two workers in the household.

We became more of a consumer society than we were before.  We became used to the fact we could have all of the toys that demand drove and here we are.  And to think, George effing Bush gets all the credit.

[MechAg94]

You are also punishing a lot of poor and middle class blue collar workers for your misguided dream of reducing foreign oil dependence.  Who do you think is paying that extra tax?  Look at all the small towns and industrial areas that haven't seen a public bus in their history.  Look at the low income blue collar guys driving 10 year old trucks.  Do you think they can all afford new low mileage cars?

And why is that?  What happened to the middle class blue collar worker's prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's?  Where did it go?  Why could one man working a blue collar job back then raise and feed a family and make a house payment?  Could it have something to do with what was done to him by his government during the 80's?  Why do the multinational corporations hold labor in so much contempt, they'd rather ship it overseas than pay an American an honest wage?

I've got a bunch of other questions for you, but I'd like to hear your answers to those.

So you admit that your half baked idea wouldn't accomplish anything close to what you intended. 
You want to fix problems caused by govt by passing even more laws and more taxes.  Then you want to get on some complaint rant about other problems caused by that same government?  I see a logic problem here. 

A blue collar worker CAN feed a family and make a house payment now.  I work with guys who do so every day and most of them are doing just fine.  Who do you think runs these chemical plants down here?  It isn't us engineers.  Notice that I did not say that guys can do the same jobs as they did in the 60's and make the same value in pay as they did then.  Markets change and labor markets change also.  In the plants also, the nature of a lot of the jobs has changed.  Some things are the same and others are completely different.  Guys may also not be able to work in the same area of the country they did 30 years ago either.  That is the nature of things. 

Now just to answer another question:  I don't think blue collar guys are going to be able to live the same lifestyle as yuppies or college educated people who have valuable skills.  On the other hand, some of the skilled technicians I work with probably make more money than the average English major. 

Personally, I think some of that might change.  One of the problems we have in this area is a shortage of really highly skilled guys who give a damn and want to be the best at their job.  Really good welders are hard to find.  Really good instrument technicians and high voltage electricians make pretty dang good money.  I believe the main guy who does our Control System programming/tuning doesn't have a college degree, but he is extremely good and I know he makes a good deal more than I do.  Really good control system guys are hard to find and demand good salaries.  I know our guy started out working on offshore oil rigs out of Louisiana.  Not the best shift schedule.

[Paddy]

So you admit that your half baked idea wouldn't accomplish anything close to what you intended.

I 'admit' no such thing.  I asked you some questions that you haven't answered.   Instead, you've given examples of union jobs!!!  I didn't ask about union jobs, I asked about the American blue collar worker.  Now if your point is that labor is undervalued and underpaid unless it comes from a union member, I agree.

grampster, you get further out all the time.  Now the destruction of the middle class, according to you, is the result of the Radical Feminist Movement.    I don't know whether to classify that as hilarious or pathetic.

[MechAg94]

Texas is a right to work state.  NONE of the jobs I refer to are Union jobs.  None of people in our company are union.  There are a few chemical plants that are union down here, but the large majority are not. 

[MechAg94]

I deny your premise that blue collar workers in general are not or cannot be prosperous.  I think what has changed is the definition of prosperity.  You also have to make sure you are not focusing on one or two industries when talking about "blue collar" workers. 

The financial issues that encourage corporations to outsource to other countries can also be laid at the feet of your wonderful Federal Govt.  The payroll taxes and other regulations encourage companies to minimize the number of workers.  In addition, companies move headquarters overseas because our govt taxes corporations on their profits here as well as profits overseas.  If they move offshore, they only get taxes for profits made here.  A lot of the regulations put in place since the 60's to protect workers have added to the overhead of companies and increased the cost of labor.  Not only to skilled technicians make more now than they used to, but the total cost to the company per employee is more. 

I really doubt your local state govts are blameless either.  A lot of the problems with unions can be laid at their feet. 

[MechAg94]

I don't deny that you have complaints that should be aired, but I think you need to define them better and pick you targets better.

[Paddy]

A few posts back you were singin' the blues about laying any mo' taxes on the po' blue collar working folks with the 10 year old trucks, yada, yada.  Now you're telling me they're doing fine.  Which is it?

A .50 cent tax ain't nothin' compared to the doubling of gas prices over the last few years.  That single ripoff has a way more destructive effect on working people than any other one thing (and there are many).  GAs prices have doubled for several reasons, but the primary ones are: 1) We've gone from the largest creditor nation in the 70's to the largest debtor nation today. 2) We've sent tons of our money over to China in exchange for their cheap third world plastic fantastic made in sweatshops crap.  So they have plenty of money to compete with us for oil.  3) Mergers and Acquisitions.  Oil companies are once again becoming monopolies.  We need another Theodore Roosevelt to bust 'em up, just like he did with Standard Oil and others.

You complain about payroll taxes?  I agree.  And do you know where the largest payroll tax came from?  Ronald Reagan impose the biggest increase on social security taxes before or since.  It amounted to $trillions, which he and Greenspan ripped off and spent.

And what else?  Oh yeah, you don't like 'regulations'.  Thinks like workplace safety standards and worker's comp.  It's too burdensome for the fatcat college educated oil company executive and owning yuppies you have such disdain for.   You think if a man is hurt on the job with substandard equipment, he should just be tossed out on the street, like they do in China?  That's not the way we do things in the U.S.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

The second part of that's probably true - we have a helluva lot better roads than most/any other countries. We also have better drivers... I think. Some foreign drivers seem downright psychotic.
But I could swear that the first part was pure BS. Pretty sure industrial pollution beats the heck out car pollution.

Also... on this general issue, it is my belief that laws like this are due to those dirty rotten old people (hereafter DROPs, those politico numbskulls that do these stupid things). Back in the 60s or 70s or some other era of immense evil, lousy movies, recreational drugs, and horrific haircuts, those DROPs would drive around town. For fun. They believe this still happens.

It doesn't happen much anymore. Younger folks drive with a destination in mind (college, job, food, girlfriend, Eliot Spitzer's hooker), not with the objective being 'to drive'. You spend the money saved on gas (saved by driving with a destination) on beer, food, ammo, or Eliot Spitzer's hooker. That's why gas prices don't effect gas consumption.

As my hero once said: "They are stupid... and they are condemned" - the former Iraqi Information Minister.

[Strings]

ya know, here in Cheeseland, there are stickers on every gas pump. These wonderful lil' gizmos list out all the different taxes already on that gallon of gas you're buying. And this guy wants to add MORE?

 I make my living on the road, driving from customer to customer. What I pay to fill up my bike now is what I used to pay to fill my car. And you're saying this is a good thing?