"Rep." in this case means "Representative," not "Republican. John Dingell is a Democrat, hence the D-Mich part.

/hopes the headline stays for entertainment value.

Snarfangel: "Rep." in this case means "Representative," not "Republican. John Dingell is a Democrat, hence the D-Mich part.

/hopes the headline stays for entertainment value.

lol, that is quite the epic fail for subby

the problem with this idea is that a vice tax doesn't work on something that is a necessary part of the lives of citizens. if you tax cigarettes, they can quit smoking. if you tax gas, they can't suddenly stop going to work or magically put an alternative fuel infrastructure in place.

use this tactic, but instead of using it on people who have no control over the infrastructure in place and little control over the availability of higher-efficiency vehicles, use it on the oil and auto companies that can actually do something about it.

Snarfangel: "Rep." in this case means "Representative," not "Republican. John Dingell is a Democrat, hence the D-Mich part.

/hopes the headline stays for entertainment value.

i lol'd

the first thing I thought was "why would a republican raise taxes?" , then I looked at historical evidence. Glad my first instinct was (semi) right.

/still *facepalm*

If people want this tax to do what it's supposed to do, they should probably jack up that tax to about $2.00/gallon, and use any proceeds to invest in alternative fuel R&D AND subsidizing diesel fuel for freight transportation.

IF you really want to get people to drive less.

I didn't think that headline was correct. No republican would ever propose something that makes that much sense.

Cagey B: If people want this tax to do what it's supposed to do, they should probably jack up that tax to about $2.00/gallon, and use any proceeds to invest in alternative fuel R&D AND subsidizing diesel fuel for freight transportation.

IF you really want to get people to drive less.

This + $3.00/gallon.

GAS THREAD

Clearly keeping gas as cheap as possible for as long as possible is the way to go. When the production starts to dwindle, the problem will take care of itself. It will take care of itself with contracting economies and other painful stuff, but that is LATER, and we need cheap gas NOW.

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.

That's the best approach I've heard in a while. How much does the US government spend protecting it's 'foreign interests'? In other words, to keep oil flowing. This should be directly attached to the cost of oil, so that people/companies who help conserve are rewarded and those who guzzle are paying the real cost.

burndtdan: the problem with this idea is that a vice tax doesn't work on something that is a necessary part of the lives of citizens. if you tax cigarettes, they can quit smoking. if you tax gas, they can't suddenly stop going to work or magically put an alternative fuel infrastructure in place.

Gasoline taxes are tricky for exactly this reason-- regressive impact. At the same time, you do want people to use buses, trains, or even carpools. You want people to walk a few blocks to get their groceries. You want an incentive to buy locally-produced foods and goods instead of shipping them in from China. You want people to demand higher fuel economy from car companies. You even want people to frickin' check their tire pressure once in a while.

Gas is ~$8/gallon in most of Europe, where incomes are lower. People find ways. If you phase in a significant gasoline tax, it will send a message to towns and cities-- plan and zone appropriately so that people don't need to drive everywhere, and get off your ass and put together a working mass transit system appropriate for the size of your town. For some places, that might mean a fleet of buses burning biodiesel. For bigger cities, it might mean light rail and a subway/el.

As for the botched headline-- this should be a conservative/libertarian principle. Burning gasoline creates externalities (carbon dioxide, other emissions) which presently aren't accounted for. By including the cost of cleanup (including future R&D to make petroleum-derived fuel obsolete) in the price of fuel, you're advocating personal responsibility-- use as much gas as you like, but you'd better clean up your mess.

pnjunction: How much does the US government spend protecting it's 'foreign interests'? In other words, to keep oil flowing. This should be directly attached to the cost of oil, so that people/companies who help conserve are rewarded and those who guzzle are paying the real cost.

You'd think that the neocons would back higher gas taxes if only to slow the demand and cripple the OPEC nations' economies, under the guise of caring about the environment. It would have bulletproof PR, and yet Iran, Venezuela, would be crying in their soup.

But that would be Machiavellian, where you implement a selfish plan in order to achieve a goal. The present administration is far too inept to be Machiavellian-- they're just garden-variety stupid.

Sleeping Monkey: I didn't think that headline was correct. No republican would ever propose something that makes that much sense.

Except Dick Cheney. (new window)

Put a halfway decent public transportation system into RI, and I'd be perfectly happy to keep my car parked most of the time.

Which he will use to go after deadbeat dads in the state with all the jobs Michigan. snerk.

Good! I hope it passes. I'm having a blast watching the economy collapse as it is, let's help it along.

Lets see:
-Less people on the roads, requiring less repairs and reducing pollutants.
-Lots more tax revenue.

Doesn't sound too bad to me. Use some of that 50 cents/gal to fund projects to boost alternative fuels.

I missed subby's epic fail. (R-Epublitard)?

good. tax it like cigarettes. like a sin tax. we all know what emissions are doing to the world. killing it and people. tax the hell out of it and maybe people wont be so selfish and they might learn to carpool or take public transit or even better yet. QUIT BUYING CARS THAT GET shiatTY GAS MILEAGE!

IXI Jim IXI: Put a halfway decent public transportation system into RI, and I'd be perfectly happy to keep my car parked most of the time.

Can't you walk from one end of the state to the other (except for Block Island) in like 20 minutes?

burndtdan: use this tactic, but instead of using it on people who have no control over the infrastructure in place and little control over the availability of higher-efficiency vehicles, use it on the oil and auto companies that can actually do something about it.

Yes, because those companies wouldn't just pass along the tax to their customers.

burndtdan: the problem with this idea is that a vice tax doesn't work on something that is a necessary part of the lives of citizens.

It's not really a vice tax. More of a use tax. The more gas you use, the more you're contributing to the degradation of roads and/or the environment. It's not a perfect idea, but it's not hard to see that existing gas taxes do not account for all of the various expenses that are generated as a result of the use of that fuel.

Cagey B: If people want this tax to do what it's supposed to do, they should probably jack up that tax to about $2.00/gallon, and use any proceeds to invest in alternative fuel R&D AND subsidizing diesel fuel for freight transportation.

IF you really want to get people to drive less.

FAIL.

There is no reason to subsidize a by-product, let alone so a shipping company can profit from it. Diesel is a by-product of gasoline production. A better idea would be to ban 18 wheelers from traveling more than 100 miles. All freight should be shipped by rail. We've all seen the commercials about how many tons of freight can be moved on one gallon a diesel by rail road. This would mean less wear and tear on the road infrastructure. Sure some truckers would lose their job but with the increase rail activity they could easily find work there. It's not like driving a truck requires an 8 year degree.

I wouldn't mind too much. I only live four miles from where I work, I enjoy the morning bike ride.

Course, for those who have real commutes because they live in the suburbs, this is not so great. All the more reason to move back to the city! It's the new thing!

Well, at least one good thing came out of totaling my car three weeks ago after that big snowstorm -- now instead of a gas-guzzling Blazer, I'm driving an awesome, flaming yellow Chevy Cobalt that gets amazing mileage. :) So if this passes, I'll be ... um, pretty much where I started. Bleh. :p

burndtdan: Snarfangel: "Rep." in this case means "Representative," not "Republican. John Dingell is a Democrat, hence the D-Mich part.

/hopes the headline stays for entertainment value.

lol, that is quite the epic fail for subby

the problem with this idea is that a vice tax doesn't work on something that is a necessary part of the lives of citizens. if you tax cigarettes, they can quit smoking. if you tax gas, they can't suddenly stop going to work or magically put an alternative fuel infrastructure in place.

use this tactic, but instead of using it on people who have no control over the infrastructure in place and little control over the availability of higher-efficiency vehicles, use it on the oil and auto companies that can actually do something about it.

As if the auto companies and oil companies wouldn't just pass it along to the consumer anyway...

Dingell's been brutally humping, flogging, beating, whipping, and otherwise abusing this dead horse for a long time now. His .50/gal gas tax is his own white whale.

On one hand it makes sense. Higher prices will make people use less fuel. Not really a bad thing.

On the other hand, Dingell is out of his farking mind.

This is his continual publicity stunt. Much like Paris Hilton being a whore or Amy Winehouse's drinking. Nothing to see here, move along.

kc987654: Can't you walk from one end of the state to the other (except for Block Island) in like 20 minutes?

That's driving.

Walking takes 15...you don't have to swerve around the potholes.

Cagey B: If people want this tax to do what it's supposed to do, they should probably jack up that tax to about $2.00/gallon, and use any proceeds to invest in alternative fuel R&D AND subsidizing diesel fuel for freight transportation.

IF you really want to get people to drive less.

Somebody's thinking.

this old fark really needs a cockpunch--a tax hike that big would CRIPPLE the trucking industry--independent trucks can barely make a profit now and this asshole wants to jack up the price a half buck and has no ideas on where the money will go--wake up people--THERE IS NOT AS OIL SHORTAGE!the price is being artificially inflated by the same assholes that thought adjustable rate interest loans made a good base for hedge funds--they lost all their money when the housing market collapsed and now they are using gas futures to prop up their portfolio's--that and OPEC constantly lowering production keeps the price/barrel high

I drive 500 miles a week and I'm in favor of $2.00 per gallon tax - get those poor farkers off my roads.

Make it a broader tax on carbon as a whole so that you discourage coal use, etc. too.

And then take the money you earn and cut other taxes (hopefully), balance the budget, or improve crumbling infrastructure. There isn't really a painless solution to foreign oil dependence and/or climate change.

IXI Jim IXI: Put a halfway decent public transportation system into RI, and I'd be perfectly happy to keep my car parked most of the time.

With the proper tax applied to public transportation it could be free. Is it still free to ride public transportation in Portland? Or was it ever and I'm just in old farker la la land?

A Michigan representative with an idea that would hurt the economy? I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I say!

If you want to cut gas consumption, re-invoke the 55 MPH limit and implement a annual tax-stamp on every commuter vehicle registration based on mileage.

Drive a 40+ MPG vehicle? $1 tax stamp.
Drive a -30 MPG vehicle? $500 tax stamp.
Drive a -20 MPG vehicle? $1,000 tax stamp.

Pretty soon our oil imports will back way off of the current 65+ percent and we can tell those middle eastern towel-heads to go eat sand.

Not a bad thing for the country's security situation either.

Odd that a guy from Michigan would propose something that would hurt their auto industry even further. Maybe that's just how they roll up there.

unknown host: "On one hand it makes sense. Higher prices will make people use less fuel. Not really a bad thing."

Well, not necessarily. I still have to drive to work (there are not a whole heck of a lot of jobs to choose from in most of MI, so those of us who have good ones would like to keep them). I could move closer to work, but the housing market is so bad that we couldn't sell our house for enough to make it worth moving (and no, it's not a McMansion or a giant mortgage, we didn't fall into that trap, fortunately). And my husband runs his own business, which also involves driving, so it won't decrease HIS gas usage anymore, either.

What it WILL do is piss off those of us who aren't flagrantly wsating gas, but who still have to drive as part of our daily lives. :p

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.

A republican think-tank doesn't like taxes! Who woulda thought!!!
:D :D :D

"If people want this tax to do what it's supposed to do, they should probably jack up that tax to about $2.00/gallon, and use any proceeds to invest in alternative fuel R&D AND subsidizing diesel fuel for freight transportation.

IF you really want to get people to drive less."

the gubmint never spends the money on what they are supposed to.

Excellent idea! He oughta make a buck!

dofusIf you want to cut gas consumption, re-invoke the 55 MPH limit and implement a annual tax-stamp on every commuter vehicle registration based on mileage.

Whaaaaa??? Are you mad, sir? How am I to become fast and/or furious with the speed limit at 55? Pure rubbish, I say!

I liked the sidebar story about the woman who woke up with a new anus after leg surgery.

He's from Michigan. He's using jujitsu here-he doesn't actually want to raise gas taxes. He puts forward an unpopular idea merely to point out it's unpopular.

Basically, everything that encourages the sale of high-mileage vehicles (higher gas taxes (or higher gas prices in general), higher CAFE requirements, etc.) hurts the Detroit Three and helps Honda and Toyota, or at least hurts Honda and Toyota less than the Detroit Three. Dingell knows this.

dofus: If you want to cut gas consumption, re-invoke the 55 MPH limit and implement a annual tax-stamp on every commuter vehicle registration based on mileage.

Drive a 40+ MPG vehicle? $1 tax stamp.
Drive a -30 MPG vehicle? $500 tax stamp.
Drive a -20 MPG vehicle? $1,000 tax stamp.



Your maths, they are interesting. Or do you drive a time machine?

Shouldn't that be Dingle, not Dingell?

dhudd: With the proper tax applied to public transportation it could be free. Is it still free to ride public transportation in Portland? Or was it ever and I'm just in old farker la la land?

I dunno. It's a long walk to Portland from Rhode Island ;)

Cagey B: If people want this tax to do what it's supposed to do, they should probably jack up that tax to about $2.00/gallon, and use any proceeds to invest in alternative fuel R&D AND subsidizing diesel fuel for freight transportation.

IF you really want to get people to drive less.

First, you research alternatives to high fuel use, THEN it is more reasonable to punish excess use. Until then, it is unreasonable. Trucking companies must pay high fuel costs because they move large amounts of cargo. Avocados don't grow in your backyard, you know.

There should be a Congressional Science Prize of one BILLION dollars for technology development in materials sciences, battery technology, superconductors, and other sciences which directly accomplish predetermined goals which benefit the US. The patents should be considered to be purchased by the Federal government for use by all US companies and citizens, and then any who wish to use the technology would be allowed to do so within the borders of the USA.
The government could license the technology to outside corporations with a fee.

I'm not a socialist, but I think if you establish prizes for specific developments, it would create more incentive for research.
It would NOT benefit the US overall to fund research which fails to reach milestones, but smaller prizes could be awarded for significant unanticipated technological breakthroughs.

Economists pretty much all agree raising gas taxes in the thing to do. And when asked the right question people agree, too! This survey was flawed as it did not suggest anything about what to make with the revenue. Suggest that it would be used to reduce some other tax, and people are willing to go for it.

shortbus_driver: I liked the sidebar story about the woman who woke up with a new anus after leg surgery.

Is it unremarkable?