The debate over a gas tax holiday has caught the attention of all three presidential candidates as well as the media. Last night, CBS "Evening News" said 150 economists had signed a petition against the cut and quoted one saying "it isn't sound economic policy."
But that list includes several prominent liberal economists, some who have also opposed the Bush tax cuts and pushed for a higher minimum wage in other petitions. The list featured economists from liberal groups such at the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, as well as several former Clinton staffers.
Reporter Priya David didn't mention any political affiliations or leanings for those opposed to the gas tax holiday. "But last week some 150 economists signed a petition saying it's a bad idea," she said.
David brought on Len Burman, from the Urban Institute, who called the temporary tax cut "pandering." Burman is just one of several signatories who worked for Democratic presidents. According to the Urban Institute Web Site, Burman is a senior fellow and "held high-level positions in both the executive and legislative branches, most recently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis at the Treasury from 1998 to 2000," during the second Bill Clinton term.
Henry Aaron, from Brookings, was the first name listed on the latest petition and a 2006 petition to back "modest increases in state minimum wages." He also appears on a third petition against the Bush tax cuts. Aaron was a staffer during Democrat Jimmy Carter's presidency. "In 1977 and 1978, he served as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare," according to the Brookings site.
Alice Rivlin, Clinton's head of the Office of Management and Budget from 1994-96, also appears on all three petitions. She is a senior fellow with Brookings and director of Economic Studies.
Brookings is run by another former Clinton staffer - Strobe Talbott, "deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration," according to his bio on the group's Web site.
Columbia University's Joseph Stiglitz also signed all three petitions. Stiglitz authored a December 2007 Vanity Fair piece blasting "catastrophe that was the Bush administration."
That petition, and another to oppose President George Bush's tax cuts, were both featured on the Web site for the left-wing Economic Policy Institute.
Even Clyde Prestowitz, a former Counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Administration, is far from conservative. Prestowitz is cited by Opensecrets.org as having given $20,000 to the Democratic National Committee and another $3,000 to Democratic candidates such as Sen. John Kerry. Prestowitz had only funded one Republican candidate - for less than $1,000.
Illustration by Yogi Love of Red Planet Cartoons.
—Dan Gainor is director of the Business and Media Institute.
Comments Policy
This is about as surprising
May 5, 2008 - 17:52 ET by Chris NormanThis is about as surprising as reading that 150 college social science professors signed a petition against the war in Iraq.
Chris - what would be surprising..
May 5, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Gary HallChris - what would be surprising.. would be reading someplace in the MSM that some 400 scientists signed a letter or a petition which presented that there was still a healthly and lively debate ongoing over the issue of anthropogenic global warming. (;~> gary
Gary, I'd have to make
May 5, 2008 - 18:12 ET by Chris NormanGary, I'd have to make certain I'd taken my daily morning aspirin before I read a report like that! :)
It is a tribute to the
May 5, 2008 - 18:11 ET by robert108It is a tribute to the inferiority of our govt-controlled schools that most Americans aren't smart enough about economics to know that the only problem with collecting fewer taxes is for the govt. It doesn't hurt the economy in any way, and in fact is good for the economy. Duh.
A free market is bad for the
May 5, 2008 - 18:20 ET by Chris NormanA free market is bad for the profession of economics - I mean, what would they do with all that time and "brain power"? We'd have economist delinquents running the streets!
tax cut on gas
May 5, 2008 - 18:29 ET by neo0071hmm and 18c cut on gas would save me just over $70 a year ......thats really going to help me cover my $12,000 health insurance bill.
No ... but getting the
May 5, 2008 - 18:35 ET by NL207No ... but getting the Government OUT of healthcare would sure as H*** cut your medical costs.
Consider this proposition: If Government meddling can cause your gas to cost at least a $1 a gallon more between direct taxes, mandatory additives, and interference with production, then how much effect is the Government having on the cost of medical care, upon which it places even more restrictions, regulations and mandates?
I disagree
May 5, 2008 - 18:57 ET by neo0071I do not believe that a Dr. is answerable to my insurance company,
but he is. I would rather he would be answerable to my health.
Private For-Profit Health Care is flawed and does not work to the advantage of the insured.
"I do not believe that a
May 5, 2008 - 19:16 ET by ckc1227"I do not believe that a Dr. is answerable to my insurance company, but he is. I would rather he would be answerable to my health. Private For-Profit Health Care is flawed and does not work to the advantage of the insured."
Right, and who do you think your doctor will answer to with free, government health care, which will become the biggest insurance company out there? Newsflash: it won't be you. And since there is no profit motive, do you really think they'll care if you're unhappy with your treatment, if you get any? Uh, no. Why would they be? Where else are you going to go?
Lastly, if you don't like your doctor dealing with your insurer, pay him directly. No one requires(most state don't anyway) you to carry health insurance...yet.
Sigh, here I go again...
May 5, 2008 - 19:52 ET by mandrakeSo you think the 'profit motive' is only thing that can motivate people in the health care system..sigh. I can only tell you there are plenty of doctors, nurses, therapist..in the Canadian system that care for people because they want to. I don't know why they do it..but they do..they did it for me THANK YOU!
Your position
May 6, 2008 - 11:21 ET by NL207Your position is shortsighted. The greatest effects the Government has on the cost of your doctor is through medical malpractice insurance and regulation of the numbers of practitioners.
Torte lawyers, operating through government connivance, have driven the cost of medical malpractice insurance through the roof. This additional cost finds its way into your pocket through the fees you pay your doctor for treatment.
Most states license physicians. No one may practice without a license in such states. The numbers of licenses granted [sold] are limited to graduates of "accredited" medical schools. The number of accredited medical schools is controlled. The number of graduates they produce each year is also controlled. Thus the supply of qualified physicians is state controlled.
Want to reduce the cost of your doctor? Fix these two problems.
It's probably enough to
May 5, 2008 - 19:02 ET by ckc1227It's probably enough to cover the meds for a few months that are necessary to control the delusions you suffer that have you believing your health insurance bill is $12,000 though. Do you channel Michael Moore regularly, or just when you need a BS statistic?
Don't worry, though, Hill has moved on to bigger and better things. Now she's going to break up OPEC, lol. She'll probably make the Saudis pay for your health care when it's all said and done. I mean, who should pay for it? Certainly not you, right?
What the hell..
May 5, 2008 - 19:14 ET by neo0071Your right its only $983.70 a month. Who the hell are you to question my insurance premiums. I have a family of 5.
At least our gas money gives the Saudi's Univerrsal Health Care, amazing how or money can be well spent.
I am me. Who else would I
May 5, 2008 - 19:31 ET by ckc1227I am me. Who else would I be? And I question it because I don't believe it. Even *if* it is true, no one forced you to have a family of 5, and no one forced you to live in a state that rips you off by legislating for health insurance to be so expensive. But nothing about that makes it okay for you to rip me off too, just because you don't want to pay for YOUR health care.
You have a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. You do not have the right to steal from me to achieve life, liberty and happiness.
Your money is being spent
May 6, 2008 - 12:21 ET by NL207Your money is being spent on Saudi Helathcare? How is that?
Now if you mean money the Saudis EARNED through the sale of THEIR oil to idiots who insist on driving their kids around in SUV's is being spent on Saudi Healthcare, I do not think you have a defensible position.
What in the heck does my
May 5, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Chris NormanWhat in the heck does my comment about economists and free markets have to do with your savings on gas and your $12000.(?!) health insurance premiums. I submitted that we aren't in a free market as things stand - I thought that was clear. If you want to make a comment, go ahead, but I can't stand when someone hangs an unrelated comment as a reply.
Sorry, I do agree. We do not
May 5, 2008 - 19:17 ET by neo0071Sorry, I do agree. We do not live in a free market economy, but public spending, war , oil and taxes are all economicaly related.
We're not socialists, we're capitalists
May 5, 2008 - 19:24 ET by CobraMan"We do not live in a free market economy, but public spending, war , oil and taxes are all economicaly related."
We don't live in a free market economy? Really? Then what economy do we live in, a centrally controlled economy like you find in socialism?
good question. Look to
May 5, 2008 - 19:34 ET by neo0071good question.
Look to China. Capitalism without Democrcacy.Thats our free market. No controls, no accountability.No clue.
You're the one who's clueless
May 5, 2008 - 19:47 ET by CobraManYou're the one who's clueless. There's a LOT of government control over market forces here in America. There's the FED, government labor laws, government regulation of shipping, manufacturing, processing, packaging, marketing, selling, revenue collection, and tax collection. Let’s not forget all the government mandates of which materials can or can not be used to make products, mandates of processes used to manufacture the products, mandates about which products may actually be made, etc. etc. etc. Just about every aspect of our economy faces some type governmental accountability and control. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, most of the time anyways, but no one in their right mind can accuse America of having an economy with no controls and accountability.
You're right about one
May 5, 2008 - 19:58 ET by ckc1227You're right about one thing: You have no clue.
delete
May 5, 2008 - 21:11 ET by CobraMandelete, wrong poster, sorry
That's 70 dollars more than you had before
May 5, 2008 - 19:14 ET by CobraManThat's still 70 dollars more than you had before. Look at it this way, if the price of gas was increased 18 cents a gallon, would you think that it's no big deal? Of course you wouldn't, you'd be complaining about how much Exxon was ripping you off. It's a two way street. If every increase is a bad thing, then every decrease is a good thing. You're just complaining about it because that's Obama says, right?
Yet, some of these same
May 5, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Chris NormanYet, some of these same people cheer for a rise of twenty five cents an hour of the minimum wage...
It's not just for you
May 5, 2008 - 19:21 ET by CobraManThe gas tax holiday wouldn't just effect you and the other personal car drivers; it would also effect the business that pays for gas too. We're looking at TENS of MILLIONS of dollars that would be saved by the business sector of our economy every month the tax holiday was in effect. That assistance to business could help prevent a real recession. So, tell me again why a gas tax holiday is a bad idea?
no money for roads and
May 5, 2008 - 19:40 ET by neo0071no money for roads and bridges perhaps?
Wrong again
May 5, 2008 - 20:05 ET by CobraManWrong again. The money for infrastructure repair and construction comes from State budgets and not the Federal budget, as it is the States that manage the infrastructure within their own territory. Those funds come from the general funds of each respective State. The federal highway funds are just assistances programs, called a subsidy, used to help the States reduce the costs they would normally have to cover themselves.
Even if the federal government stopped subsidizing the States completely, something that is not going to happen, that infrastructure maintenance and repair would still occur as each state has more than enough money in their budget to handle the necessary infrastructure maintenance and repair costs. You see, the state ALSO charge fuels tax, remember, combined with sales taxes and income taxes. If the general fund is a little short and extra funds are needed; the States can just sell bonds, like they use to do in the past, and collect that needed revenue quickly.
Face it, there’s no danger of the States loosing any funds needed to maintain infrastructure because of a federal gas tax holiday since there are plenty of ways States collect needed revenue. The only danger would be to needless pork projects. Trimming a little pork would actually be a good thing, don’t you think?
Yes, pork trimming is a
May 5, 2008 - 21:22 ET by neo0071Yes, pork trimming is a good thing. Problem is we have a short fall in the state budget. They are cutting education first, so who is going to pay? Exxon according to Hillary.
Who's fault is that?
May 5, 2008 - 22:11 ET by CobraMan"Problem is we have a short fall in the state budget."
Who's falult is that? It's not "Big Oil" that's at fault. It's Big State Government who is to blame.
"They are cutting education first, so who is going to pay?"
Who are "they?" My state has been increasing education spending every two years (we have a two year budget here in Minnesota) since I was a child, as have every other State I know of, as well as the federal government. If education budgets ARE being cut by a state legislature, it’s not the fault of Big Oil and a fuel tax holiday isn’t going to change anything.
"Exxon according to Hillary."
Exxon is ALREADY paying billions of tax dollars in the form of corporate taxes every quarter. Hillary is just using campaign rhetoric by saying that she'll charge them even more with some type of “windfall profits tax” but we all know that this is not going to happen.
Dan - here's a fun little analysis of Exxon's tax contribution..
May 5, 2008 - 18:46 ET by Gary HallExxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
Not likely to see that on the CBS Evening News, are we? (;~> gary
Exxon are thieves
May 5, 2008 - 19:09 ET by neo0071Exxon are thieves, robbers and bandits,they should be paying everyones tax . they nearly do anyway.
Why not sell the company to China and force them to sell gas only to the US and pay all our tax
Which group of monopolies do you think has been crippling advances in alternative energies for the last 100yrs!!! Big OIL!
Our political and financial policies have revolved to heavily on this industry for far too long.
Big Oil's Taxes
May 5, 2008 - 19:17 ET by candanceHere's another detail they don't want to mention - the "windfall" profits made by Big Oil are roughly half of the tax margin.
So they're earning ten cents on every gallon and are then expected to cough up nearly twenty cents on the gallon...they would be running in the hole.
...how is that fair?
someone is making $40 a barrell
May 5, 2008 - 19:30 ET by neo0071No way this is correct. Oil co's are breaking even at selling a barrel of oil at $60 a barrel. they are
selling at over $100.. Someone is making over $40 a barrel. I think $30-40Bn profit a quater is crazy. If this was google, the monopolies and trade commision would step in.
"I think $30-40Bn profit a
May 5, 2008 - 19:53 ET by ckc1227"I think $30-40Bn profit a quater is crazy."
Of course you do. What good little socialist doesn't?
nec0071
May 5, 2008 - 21:46 ET by Gary HallQuickly, as I have to run .. but you do have a point. One should consider that there are really two separate businesses running at most of these oil companies. 1. the oil business and 2. the gasoline and oil refinery business.
I suspect that the Saudi's are making a profit at less than $10 a barrel.
In a rising market, such as this, when prices are rising, their profits will soar. In a declining market, they will have to fight for a profit - will be squeezed.
Exxon/Mobile is making a huge profit on their crude business - I suspect the refinery business is doing only slightly better than average. Yes, one arm of the business has to pay market prices for the crude, but the crude arm is indeed making up for it - at present.
Perhaps Valero is a good example - as they are not in the crude oil business - only refining and gasoline sales. Their profits would be up now as well, because of the market -- but not like the big conglomerates.
Perhaps someone else here can expound on this theme.
(;~> Gary
PS - but still, they are paying huge amounts of taxes into the federal coffers.
One vs. many
May 5, 2008 - 23:32 ET by CobraMan"If this was google, the monopolies and trade commision would step in."
Your Google comparison is false. A monopoly is just one company or corporation controlling all aspects of a particular market, like the old Ma Bell before it was broken up in the 70‘s. Today, there is no oil monopoly, no single corporation controlling the market. There are several oil corporations operating just in America alone.
There was an oil monopoly at one time in America. That was Standard Oil and that monopoly was broken up by the federal government decades ago.
Get it right: 10 cents per dollar, not per gallon.
May 6, 2008 - 10:02 ET by pbanks7Exxon-Mobile, the biggest US oil company, and #14 worldwide, made 11 cents on the DOLLAR, NOT PER GALLON in the first quarter. I ran the numbers myself.
A net profit margin of 11% is a pretty good return, but it's not inconsistent from prior years. If the price of a barrel of crude oil doubles and profit margin stays the same, net profit doubles.
In the 40% tax bracket, their net profits are just about equal to the amount of taxes they pay. If you add in property and payroll taxes, they probably pay more in tax than in earnings per share.
Taxes are just another expense to any business, to be included in the cost of goods sold. Wells are capped when the price for oil is below a profitable amount, opened when above the amount. We are well beyond the time to open ANWR. Just the announcement of drilling there would reduce the price of gas.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
Neo, did it escape you that
May 5, 2008 - 19:19 ET by NortoNeo, did it escape you that the government already is taking 500% more from a gallon of gas than, for example, Exxon? And then Exxon gets socked with a corporate tax as well!
Most folks on my side of the isle want to take over the oil fields in the area of the conflict and send it here to pay for our involvement. You know, to the victor go the spoils.
I think the Iraqi people who
May 5, 2008 - 19:29 ET by neo0071I think the Iraqi people who have died in the millions may say something about this.ps. Victor goes the spoils, you joking right? I suppose you would vote for Genghis khan for president
troll bait
May 5, 2008 - 19:32 ET by CobraManIf Genghis khan WAS a President of any country, it's a sure bet that you'd be ok with that. I know for sure that you would not want America to "invade" his country and take him out like we did with Saddam.
I dont think he would have
May 5, 2008 - 19:39 ET by neo0071Thats dumb
LOL. Great rhetoric. Perhaps
May 5, 2008 - 19:37 ET by neo0071LOL. Great rhetoric. Perhaps we should stop trying to run other countries first and run this one better.
LOL Great false assumption
May 5, 2008 - 22:40 ET by CobraManLOL. Great false assumption. We're not "running" Iraq, not by a long shot. The Iraqi's have their own Government and they're "running" themselves. We're just assisting them as an ally, at their request, in order to help them provide security for their citizens until they can do the job themselves. We're also helping them recover from 30 years of despotic rule. We not only have troop's there, we have business contractors and advisers there helping them create a new and vibrant economy. You do understand this, right?
Make no mistake about it:
May 5, 2008 - 19:46 ET by ckc1227Make no mistake about it: PLENTY of things have escaped neo-lib, lol.
"Exxon are thieves, robbers
May 5, 2008 - 19:43 ET by ckc1227"Exxon are thieves, robbers and bandits,they should be paying everyones tax . they nearly do anyway."
Right. The federal government will take in over 3 trillion dollars this year for doing nothing, and Exxon is the thief, lol.
Hey neo-lib, maybe if you stopped wasting your time on the computer and picked up a second job you could afford your health insurance.
Who am I kidding. Like you have a first job, lol.
I'm not a liberal, I dont
May 5, 2008 - 19:59 ET by neo0071I'm not a liberal, I dont not support any political group or party.
Did I attack you personaly, so why attack me.
Who am I my kidding, your an ingnoramus only an ignorant fool would make point by finishing with a personal attack.
Donkey.
Then what do YOU support. A
May 5, 2008 - 20:05 ET by Jack BauerThen what do YOU support. A capitalist economy or socialist thievery?
Stop telling us what you are against, and tell us what you are for. God, I hope it doesn't involve unicorns.
you make a valid point , why
May 5, 2008 - 20:10 ET by neo0071you make a valid point , why finish it with an attack on me personally?
Neither has shown to work.
Actually capitalism does
May 5, 2008 - 20:18 ET by Jack BauerActually capitalism does work.
That's the reason you're sitting all nice and comfy posting on a blog, on a PC, powered by electricity, in your ample leisure time, well fed, in a home, as you visit well stocked supermarkets 24/7, offering unbelievable variety, from all over the world, thanks to the free-enterprise system.
Sorry, but socialism, communism, or any other ism you care to bring up didn't give you the luxury of being an ungrateful whatever.
Exxon Mobil has a profit
May 5, 2008 - 20:03 ET by Jack BauerExxon Mobil has a profit margin of about 7-10%. What do you reckon is the correct profit margin for every private enterprise business should be?
And what exactly is it that qualifies you or the State to set profit margins?
Social/economic self
May 5, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Chris NormanSocial/economic self righteousness?
chris -- yep, it is amazing
May 5, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Jack Bauerchris -- yep, it is amazing how a guy with no political or economic philosophy manages to espouse the same old same old: i.e. socialist claptrap.
Uh -- or maybe he's one of those Ron Paul Republicans.
You notice how easily he slips into crazy talk. Sure the only reason we're not driving hover cars powered by free water is the conspiracy of the oil companies for the past 100 years.
keep clinging to that tree.
May 5, 2008 - 20:52 ET by neo0071keep clinging to that tree.
Hell no... Cut that tree
May 5, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Clear thinkerHell no...
Cut that tree down and make it useful.
"Abstain from McCain"
Still waiting for you to
May 6, 2008 - 06:58 ET by Jack BauerStill waiting for you to grant us the benefit of your vast experience to tell us what the PROFIT MARGIN of Exxon Mobil should be.
1%? 2%? 3%? 4%? 5%? 6%?
NOTHING? It should be taken over by the State? Do tell us what you are for, because we know what you are aginast.
Or just scared to?
neo - explain these
May 5, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Free StinkerWhich group of monopolies do you think has been crippling advances in alternative energies for the last 100yrs!!! Big OIL!
Neo, if that was true then how do you explain these?
Is Big Oil getting slack in their work?
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
i never said we didnt have
May 5, 2008 - 21:06 ET by neo0071Keep smoking its cool.
I'm sure my local Honda dealer will have one.
neo
May 5, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Free StinkerThey go on sale in Southern California this Summer.
Now, what about the other three technologies you ignored?
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
yes they all sound good.
May 5, 2008 - 21:39 ET by neo0071yes they all sound good. what about mass production? will it ever happen?We need china to buy them as well? in the mean time gas is up again....
sheesh
May 5, 2008 - 21:44 ET by botgthen produce them, it's that easy, you can complain or do.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
So, how did these slip past Big Oil?
May 5, 2008 - 21:45 ET by Free StinkerSo, how did these slip past Big Oil?
Lockhead Martin signed a deal with EEStor (the Battery guys) How did big Oil allow that?
I'm looking for examples of technologies that Big Oil has squelched.
Meanwhile, Nuclear Electric power (cheap & clean) has been succesfully squelched by people who erroneously think they are helping nature. I want to help nature. Let's replace those Coal fired plants with Nuke plants!
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
I'm sorry for all this, I
May 5, 2008 - 21:36 ET by neo0071I'm sorry for all this, I don't mean to be snippy but it seems I'm
being personally attacked for thinking that a tax holiday is not going to
cut co2 emissions, give us alternative energy sources or help the
economy.
~
May 5, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Free StinkerNow, did I personally attack *you* ?
Or did I ask questions about real technologies?
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
"I'm sorry for all this, I
May 5, 2008 - 22:13 ET by ckc1227"I'm sorry for all this, I don't mean to be snippy but it seems I'm
being personally attacked for thinking that a tax holiday is not going tocut co2 emissions, give us alternative energy sources or help the economy."
You're being attacked(by me anyway) for being a liberal idiot troll. No one said the tax holiday WOULD cut co2 emissions or give us alternative energy sources. Here's an FYI: Free health care won't either. And you're right, you are sorry. Anyone who thinks it's okay to steal profits from anyone because, well, just because, is one sorry a**ed human being.
If you're so desperate to cut co2 emissions, I recommend you lead by example. I'm sure you can find some rope somewhere.
"Why not sell the company
May 5, 2008 - 22:31 ET by ckc1227"Why not sell the company to China and force them to sell gas only to the US and pay all our tax"
Maybe we can force them to throw in a free magic unicorn with each fill-up too, and on Christmas, Santa will give everyone a ride in his flying sleigh.
By the way, if it weren't for Exxon, we'd all have reindeer powered flying sleighs today.
Sons a biches...
How is it that gas that
May 5, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Biff McCainHow is it that gas that Exxon sold at the pump for 99 cents in December
of 1998, they now sell for $3.65 and only make nine cents?
They still pay pennies a year to pump the country's treasure out of the Gulf, last I checked.
They pay billions of dollars too
May 5, 2008 - 22:52 ET by CobraManThey also pay billions of dollars in the form of corporate taxes every quarter too. Along with increased labor costs, increased equipment costs, increased transportation fees, refining fees, permit fees (they pay those every year, you know) etc. etc. etc. Don't you think that has something to do with it?
Exxon is not immune from increased taxes, inflation, and increased general expenses that every other company in America faces every year too, you know.
Can a liberal explain to me
May 5, 2008 - 21:56 ET by c5thenwhy "you guys" always think that the economy will be better off if people keep less of their money and give more of it to the Federal Government?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Fine. The gas tax pays
May 5, 2008 - 23:02 ET by cleverpigFine.
The gas tax pays for our highway system. That system is falling apart. Occasionally, massive bridges collapse and kill people. It's no good.
If you want private companies to build the highways, then you will get to enjoy driving on toll roads, which is a royal pain in the butt. Exact change, booths before every exit so they can charge you for the length of your drive. So much for the open road!
So personally, I don't mind paying the gas tax. Unless you have some brilliant plan involving each individual citizen taking that money and repairing the highway themselves, I think the system works pretty well.
The gas tax holiday is a sop that makes people feel good, but unless you want our infrastructure in worse shape than it currently is the money to keep it up has to come from somewhere. That somewhere will eventually, however roundabout it may be, come from you and me. As it should :)
The Good Old Days
May 6, 2008 - 00:27 ET by CobraMan"Unless you have some
brilliant plan involving each individual citizen taking that money and
repairing the highway themselves, I think the system works pretty well."
Ever hear of municipal bonds? That how infrastructure expenses used to be covered by local and state governments. Do you think that the federal government paid for the Golden State Bridge in California, for example, or The Manhattan Bridge in New York with some type of gas tax? No, those bridges, and roads that connect to them, were paid for by a combination of the sale of municipal bonds, state funds, federal funds and public and private donations. The majority of the money didn’t come from the state or federal government, but by the sale of bonds and by private and public donations.
Those options can still used today but most States haven't bothered with requesting and collecting public and private donations or the use of the sales of municipal bonds. They rely mostly on state tax revenue and federal subsidies. That, in my opinion, is a foolish decision as it's ignoring large sources of revenue that would tend to lower the tax requirements of the citizens.
A bond is debt, you have to
May 6, 2008 - 01:17 ET by cleverpigA bond is debt, you have to pay it back. It's not magic money! Like I said: eventually, it comes back to the taxpayer one way or another.
*
May 6, 2008 - 01:40 ET by R D Helm*
And your point is?
May 6, 2008 - 01:43 ET by CobraMan"A bond is debt, you have to pay it back. It's not magic money!"
No kidding! So are the short-term loans that both the federal government and the state governments use to finance projects before they can collect the required taxes and cover the debt. Remember that the budgets are based on PROJECTED revenue and not EXISTING revenue, it's kind of a bet that enough taxes will be collected to cover the cost of the various projects that are already being performed.
So, how does the various governments cover those expenses when the funds are not immediately available? Simple, they borrow the money through the use of short-term loans. Those loans are not interest free, you know. The taxpayer not only pays for the cost of the project; they pay for the increased cost of the interest as well.
Like you said, it always comes back to the taxpayer. But, unlike what you said, it doesn’t all come from gas taxes.
So... we
May 7, 2008 - 00:04 ET by cleverpigSo... we agree!
Maintenance comes from gas taxes. As it should, since bonds are clearly unsuited to continuou, long term expenditures... and are paid back with taxes anyway!
Open your eyes and look around.
May 6, 2008 - 08:15 ET by c5thenThe gas tax has been integrated into the general budget since the 1974 Unified Budget Act. The only highway and infrastructure repairs and maintanance is done by the States using Federal funds that they also roll into their general budgets. In short, the gas tax is so inefficient now that it is almost worthless.
Better to go back to floating State and local bonds where all of the funds have to be legally used for the specific projects instead of some politician's pet project.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Gotta Love that Pic, But . . .
May 5, 2008 - 22:01 ET by Junk Science SkepticUnfortunately, the lefty econos are correct on their conclusion, although they may well have reached it for the wrong reasons.
Summer gas supplies are almost always insufficient to meet demand, thanks to the eco-whackos insisting on more than a dozen different seasonal blends with only a limited number of refineries available to accommodate such nonsense. Added to that is the increased demand due to summer vacation travel.
When supplies decrease and demand increases, the price of any commodity, and especially those commodities for which there is no realistic substitute, will quickly rise to a point at which it begins to affect demand.
It wasn't regulation that quickly affected the price run-up when refineries were offline post-Katrina, it was our own individual reduction of demand, resulting from our unwillingness to pay then-record prices for non-essential vehicle travel. It wasn't a huge drop in demand, but its impact was fast and certain.
So until refiners start flooding the market in the summer months, the maximum price of gas, with tax or with a tax holiday, will always rise to somewhere just below the point at which demand is affected.
If we're willing to pay $4/gallon to drive to the beach, we ultimately don't care whether the $.42/gallon tax is going to the government, to Exxon, or straight to Hugo effin Chavez, because we're not buying a tax, or road maintenance, or even gas, we're buying a trip to the beach. And that's a trip we're not going to give up until the total price per gallon reaches a point where we decide the trip isn't worth it.
If $4/gallon is our resistance point, that's what we'll pay, regardless of whether that figure includes a tax or whether the tax has been temporarily suspended.
Absent a huge increase in summertime supplies of refined gas, cutting the gas tax over the summer holiday is unlikely to have any impact on the total price we'll pay at the pump. The cut will, however, have a dramatic negative impact on highway repair/maintenance funding.
Sure, I'd love to buy gas for $1.25/gallon, but then again, I'd like to buy a new 2008 Mustang for $4,000.00, a new 2,500 square-foot house in a good neighborhood for $60,000.00, and a gallon of milk for $.65 cents, but guess what? Until everybody else stops paying $4.00, $36,000.00, $285,000.00, and $3.85 respectively, ain't none of it gonna happen!
As much as I hate to agree with anybody who can even remotely be identified with the left, this is one rare time where somebody on the left is correct. But like I said, the lefties are probably right for the wrong reasons, so we don't have to start worrying about a rip in the fabric of time just yet.
ABC 2008 (Anybody But Clinton)
Doesn't BJ Clinton get $200,000 per speech-outrageous profit!
May 6, 2008 - 10:32 ET by PawpawNThey pay Bill Clinton $200,000 per speech. That is about $2222.22 per minute, or $37.04 per second. Minimum wage is what now, $6.25 per hour, so he is getting$133,333.33 per hour. Gross profit so he should be taxed at different rate, give up his profits, etc. Same for Movie, TV, Sports Stars, TV news people, etc! Oh, but it's different with oil companies! How?
Anyone see the irony in
May 5, 2008 - 22:39 ET by ckc1227Anyone see the irony in neo-lib's hatred of Exxon's supposed monopoly while being beholden to and worshiping the greatest monopoly in this country, the federal government?
Who needs fiction when reality is so much more entertaining, lol.
you are beholden to your
May 5, 2008 - 23:11 ET by neo0071you are beholden to your own BS
Oh no... Not another
May 5, 2008 - 23:13 ET by Clear thinkerOh no...
Not another one.
"Abstain from McCain"
Is it the contention of this
May 5, 2008 - 23:05 ET by cleverpigIs it the contention of this article that because six of the 150 signatories to this petition were involved in democratic administrations, that this is somehow a partisan ploy? That seems absurd. You really think the other 144 were duped by their liberal friends?
So...you've done the homework on the other 144?
May 6, 2008 - 10:24 ET by TheDeuceGo ahead. Let's see you delve into the names and find all those conservative signators.
We'll wait.