"Good Morning America" co-host Diane Sawyer on Tuesday aggressively lobbied for the Obama administration to install a European-style gas tax on the United States. Talking to Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, about Obama's plans for increased fuel standards, she began, "Why not just go to a gas tax, for instance, which would accomplish a reduction in the use of gasoline, dependence on foreign oil right away?" Sawyer would proceed to ask variations on this question six times.
Citing calls for a gas tax by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, she pressed, "If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, not by 2015 or 2016, but right now, there is one way to do it. It's the way Europe has been doing it. And that is a gasoline tax." Browner mostly dodged the question and focused on new fuel and environmental standards. Sawyer, however, would not be deterred. She fretted, "Do you think the gas tax approach is right or wrong? Or just politically unacceptable?" Not liking the non-answers, the ABC host argued, "So, no gas tax ever, as far as you're concerned?"
It soon became clear this would be the focus of almost the entire interview. Sawyer grilled, "I have a feeling we're in a standoff on this question here. It's that politically explosive?" After asking one question on another topic, the anchor returned to her quest for higher taxes. She queried, "I'm asking one more time here. If a gas tax reduces dependence on foreign oil and changes the foreign political dependency immediately, why not be for it right now?"
Now, at no time did Sawyer speculate or consider the consequences of raising taxes in a recession. She didn't wonder what effect higher taxes have had on Europe. Instead, she repeatedly pushed the Obama administration to the left, practically begging for higher taxes.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:04am on May 19, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: Other questions arising this morning. Why not just go to a gas tax, for instance, which would accomplish a reduction in the use of gasoline, dependence on foreign oil right away? One of the questions we posed just a few minutes ago when we talked to Carol Browner, who is the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Ms. Browner, so good to have you with us this morning. Good morning.
CAROL BROWNER (Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change): Thank you.
SAWYER: First, let me just ask this one. It's counterintuitive- the time when the car companies seem to be teetering so badly, to be saying to them, okay, retool for some $40 billion or more?
BROWNER: Well, Diane, we worked with all of the car companies and ten of the CEOs will be joining the President here today at the White House. And what they told us over and over again is they wanted to make more fuel-efficient. They wanted to make more cleaner cars. And what they needed was the government to give them the predictability and certainty so that they could make the investments towards cleaner cars. And that's what the President announces today.
SAWYER: Again, I guess they want the government to ensure that everybody is going to be doing this at once. But let me ask you about what Tom Friedman, the columnist from the New York Times, and others have been saying. If you really want to change the fuel patterns of this country, and if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, not by 2015 or 2016, but right now, there is one way to do it. It's the way Europe has been doing it. And that is a gasoline tax. And he said you can phase it in over two years, 10 cents a month. It will not be that onerous. And Americans stand ready.
BROWNER: Well, what we're doing is we're using the laws on the books today, which allow us to set fuel efficiency standards and we're setting the first ever greenhouse gas pollution standards. And what this means is, we're going to be able to reduce our dependence on oil by 1.8 billion barrels over the life of the program.
SAWYER: Do you think the gas tax approach is right or wrong? Or just politically unacceptable?
BROWNER: I think what we're doing today is right. I think putting these standards, proposing these standards, moving forward, working with car companies, working in partnership is what we need to be doing.
SAWYER: So, no gas tax ever, as far as you're concerned?
BROWNER: We're doing what we think the right today, which is setting fuel efficiency, greenhouse standards.
SAWYER: I have a feeling we're in a standoff on this question here. It's that politically explosive?
BROWNER: Well, we work, obviously, within the laws on the books. And what we're using is the President's executive authority to propose these standards. And it is the first-ever time that EPA And DOT Have taken their existing individual authorities and woven them together so that we can give the American public and the car companies what they want.
SAWYER: Let me just ask one more question here. As we know for cars, you're talking about reduction from 27.5 miles a gallon, up to 39 miles per gallon. Also, light trucks. 23 up to 30. But what about Hummers, which are getting about eight to ten miles a gallon? What are you going to do about them?
BROWNER: Well, all cars and light-duty trucks are included. So, Hummers would be included. And in every single category they have to improve their fuel efficiency. This isn't simply about looking across the fleet, and so, therefore, if you make a big car, you have to make smaller cars. This is about every, single category of vehicles becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their greenhouse gas pollution.
SAWYER: I'm asking one more time here. If a gas tax reduces dependence on foreign oil and changes the foreign political dependency immediately, why not be for it right now?
BROWNER: Well, what the President is announcing today, these proposed national standards will achieve the greatest reduction in oil use that we've seen in a very, very long time. 1.8 billion barrels of oil will be reduced over the life of the program.
SAWYER: Again, we thank you so much, Ms. Browner. As we said, it's a big day at the White House, a big announcement. And we're grateful to you for joining us.
BROWNER: Thank you.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"...there is one way to do
May 19, 2009 - 10:12 ET by robert108"...there is one way to do it."
Agreed, and that one way is to develop our own supply of oil. Totalitarians always want to restrict supply.
What????
May 19, 2009 - 10:18 ET by RESTLESS 1Weren't these the same people bemoaning the profits of big oil and gas companies when the price of oil skyrocketed last year?
I guess it's alright to pay 4-5 dollars per gallon as long as it grows government, huh?
Stupid is too kind a term for diane.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Stupid is right.
May 19, 2009 - 10:45 ET by ghost of Mary Jo KopechneFewer people use gas then what? Nobody can work! I guess we should all just stay home or live in NYC. I am not doing either.
Support Our Troops. God bless the military.
http://adoptaplatoon...
Who made the big stink
May 19, 2009 - 16:12 ET by SRPwrdWho made the big stink about it last year? The Gov'ment and the media. Who can stifle a stink when it's the Gov'ment making all that money? The Gov'ment and the media.
"I believe in American Exceptionalism, just like Brits believe in British Exceptionalism and Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism." - PreBO, 4/4/09
sawyer
May 19, 2009 - 10:19 ET by jessieHjessieH Hey, Sawyer, they already tax gas, you idiot.
Hey Diane. If you want to
May 19, 2009 - 10:35 ET by QueenMumHey Diane. If you want to pay European gas taxes how 'bout you move there. You don't speak for real Americans who are sick of the idea that more taxes is the solution to energy independence and every other "problem".
GO CAVS!!!!!
limo libs
May 19, 2009 - 10:35 ET by boomerconI just hate it when the limo-libs assert themselves as if they have any clue whatsoever.
Just tax HER gas. Give them all (the limo-libs) a special gas card that adds a $2/gal. tax to every gas purchase they make. That should do it.
What Is It With These People?
May 19, 2009 - 10:41 ET by HoosierEmI grew up with a father whose goal it was to pay as few taxes as possible. He believed in taking care of himself and his family and small government.
It has been an extreme shock to my system (and it still shocks me) that there are people out there who push for higher taxes.
Paying as little in taxes as possible is not about being selfish - it's about self preservation. These people are obviously clueless as to what it's like out here for those of us in the real world.
sawyer
May 19, 2009 - 10:48 ET by SemusThese "Useful Idiots" love Europe so much what in hell is keeping them here?
And once again, the hardest
May 19, 2009 - 10:49 ET by FreakyBoyAnd once again, the hardest hit by liberal policies.... the poor.
Let’s Get Some Perspective
May 19, 2009 - 10:56 ET by Red JeepAmerican citizens live where they live and work where they do in part due to the cheap availability of gas. It is a necessity of life in rural areas. We are not highly urbanized like Europe. Public transportation is not an option for most.
The US is 2 1/2 times the size of western Europe. Germany is slightly smaller than Montana (and waged WW2 with gas made from coal). France is almost twice the size of Colorado. Italy is slightly larger than Arizona. The Netherlands are twice the size of New Jersey. Spain is twice the size of Oregon. Britian is slightly smaller than Oregon.
Each European country is not the size of the US, not even close. To compare what Europe does and think it should be done here, because after all the Europeans are just more civilized than us barbarians in the U.S. is a joke.
Maybe Diane should take some geography lessons. Learn about how Germany waged 5+ years of war using gas made from coal. Maybe we should start making gas from coal. Some people are so…
Sawyer is right. If we
May 19, 2009 - 10:57 ET by jdhawkSawyer is right. If we really want to limit the total miles driven in this country, then increasing the price of a gallon of gas is the way to do it. Whether that is through higher taxes or demand exceeding supply the result will be the same.
Make all cars, on average, more efficient will cause drivers to drive more not less. Unless the price of that transportation is prohibitive. For example, the GM Bolt is estimated to cost $38k. If that is true and it is also true that you will not be able to buy more modestly priced cars because of government mandates that call for battery powered cars, then less cars will be bought. Care to guess what that will do to the auto industry?
Nevertheless, the reason that bambi, the first stupid liberal, doesn't have to increase the price of a gallon of gas it that his other economic policies will do it for him. With the avalanche of debt that will hit the bond market, interest rates will soar. The oil suppliers of the world will note this and cause the price of a barrel of oil to increase. We are already seeing this in the market place now. Oil is over $60 a barrel today despite more supply then there has been in decades. It is called inflation. Get used to it. It will ripple across all commodities as more and more of the trillions of government debt hits the bond markets.
The above formula is a recipe for disaster for our economy. Every dollar taken out of the economy in the form of taxes is a dollar that can't be used for investing in the private sector. Every dollar that pays for the interest on debt does nothing for our economy whatsoever. Every dollar sent overseas to the world's oil producers makes their standard of living soar and ours plummet. Don't believe me? Visit Dubai. Visit Saudi Arabia.
"Sawyer is right. If we
May 19, 2009 - 11:15 ET by QueenMum"Sawyer is right. If we really want to limit the total miles driven in
this country, then increasing the price of a gallon of gas is the way
to do it. Whether that is through higher taxes or demand exceeding
supply the result will be the same"
Why should it be a goal to limit miles driven? And if people drive less, who's going to pay the increased taxes? Answer: People who have to drive for their living - truck drivers, salespeople, etc. Raising taxes always has the opposite effect on the problems it purports to solve.
Agree with you overall, jd.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Make all cars, on average,
May 19, 2009 - 12:36 ET by MrSnugglesMake all cars, on average, more efficient will cause drivers to drive
more not less. Unless the price of that transportation is
prohibitive. For example, the GM Bolt is estimated to cost $38k. If
that is true and it is also true that you will not be able to buy more
modestly priced cars because of government mandates that call for
battery powered cars, then less cars will be bought. Care to guess
what that will do to the auto industry?
What it will do is force us to take out a mortgage just to buy a car.
Hyper-protcectionism
May 19, 2009 - 23:44 ET by UnsaneEvery dollar taken out of the economy in the form of taxes is a dollar that can't be used for investing in the private sector. Every dollar that pays for the interest on debt does nothing for our economy whatsoever. Every dollar sent overseas to the world's oil producers makes their standard of living soar and ours plummet. Really? Then you had better be prepared to explain where the 747s the Saudis and others in the Middle East were purchased, who made them, and where. Then, explain where THAT money came from.
You also may wish to explain Canada, who supplies the United States with 19% of its oil. Their streets aren't exactly paved with gold, even in Calgary or Edmonton.
Your hyper-protectionist argument is typically used by those who see the economy as a zero-sum game, who desperately therefore want America turned into an autarky that is hermetically sealed off from the entire rest of the world in every conceivable way. Yeah, that does wonders for our standard of living. The Smoot-Hawley (IIRC) Act of 1930 accomplished everything you wanted. But our standard of living and everyone else's plummeted.
Instead, I like free trade; I also like drilling for our own oil on our own soil, and extracting oil shale out of the West. I also like the idea of the United States taking a page from France's experience and going 78% nuclear.
Finally, I also like the idea of stopping subsidies for corn-based ethanol and for sugar, THEN telling the sugar growers that if they want the money they got before, then they can get it on the free market by using sugar based ethanol, if the market can bear it. (Sugar is supposed to be better feedstock for ethanol than corn.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You missed the main point
May 19, 2009 - 11:04 ET by 10ksnookerThey want the taxes -- Any scam that will deliver is fine with the socialists. They simply need more free money to giveaway.
True
May 19, 2009 - 13:19 ET by general companySad, but yea, your right
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
a gas tax penalizes the economical as well as the wasteful
May 19, 2009 - 11:12 ET by UndercoverConservativea federal money grab on the order of a European gas tax (we already have a pretty ferocious State tax here in CA) penalizes those who drive economically more so than those who are wasteful.
Someone who can afford a big @ss truck like a Hummer can already survive an increase in gas prices-they might have to sacrifice a luxury or two somewhere. Someone driving an older Civic or Tercel who's already getting 20-30 MPG is probably not one with a lot of disposable income, any driving they do a necessity not for fun. Doubling their fuel expenditure means a house payment is made at the sacrifice of savings against hard times, or nicer clothes for the kids. For others it is the difference between buying food for the freezer and saving in bulk, or paying extra for gas and having to buy in smaller amounts to make rent payments.
This is where Federalism shows it's ugly side. If it were so all fired important, *individual states* could decide to raise taxes on fuel-and correspondingly watch their economies fail and the drain on their coffers from increased welfare/unemployment claims takes out any gains from those taxes. Look to CA to see what happens in the REAL WORLD when these policies are inacted-leftist crime control ideas, social experiments, government interference and tax after tax, creates high crime, insufficient resources like water and land, out of control social service expenses, failing infrastructure and a bankrupted state government.
And people want to create this "paradise" on a Federal level? WTF?
Besides, notice that much of Europe avoids spending money on fossile fuels to generate power, they have those "evil" nuclear plants. We could save a heck of a lot more oil shutting off gas or oil fired powerplants and switching to nuclear...but that would actually provide a solution other than oppression of the "common man" and economic sabotage of the nation for the profit of a worldwide elite.
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
Undercover: Glad you
May 19, 2009 - 11:28 ET by QueenMumUndercover: Glad you brought up the nuclear power issue. There are American companies who are helping build nuclear power plants in Europe. We have the technology, to coin a phrase. There are plants in the U.S. which have been generating safe, clean power for decades. It's just plain crazy how the answers are right in front of our noses, and the socialists want to finesse some sort of alternative.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Because their goal is not
May 19, 2009 - 12:37 ET by MrSnugglesBecause their goal is not clean energy, their goal is complete and absolute control.
With the electric car's
May 19, 2009 - 21:00 ET by general companyThe elec grid will fail, they will need to ration power.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Here's what goes on in Europe...
May 19, 2009 - 11:11 ET by Prester John....or at least in Italy.
I was stationed at a NATO HQs in Italy back in the mid-90s and the gas was going for over $4/gallon due to taxes. I was in the southern party of Italy which is much poorer with greater unemployment than in Rome and the northern party of the country.
I asked my Italian boss how in the world the average person could afford the gas.
His answer, "Simple, everyone cheats on their income taxes so it all evens out".
Ha! Great story, PJ. GO
May 19, 2009 - 11:28 ET by QueenMumHa! Great story, PJ.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Tax the MSM - they are the
May 19, 2009 - 11:17 ET by mattmTax the MSM - they are the biggest source of gas on the planet.
Replace Sawyer with Prejean
May 19, 2009 - 11:32 ET by allanfThe more I watch Diane Sawyer, the more I am convinced that she is a feckless ditz. Time to replace the aging diva with someone like Carrie Prejean.
What a surprise, another
May 19, 2009 - 11:35 ET by fitzfongWhat a surprise, another casting couch botox bimbo teleprompter reader with absolutely no economic literacy begs for even more unrealistic and punitive taxes in the heart of an economic meltdown. The fact that the presence of this journalistic malpractice is tolerated...forget challenged...shows just how far we have to come before even making the slightest economic recovery. The widespread ignorance of the average American enables Obama mouthpieces like Diane Sawyer to continue to spew job-killing garbage without challenge...and the stupid among the electorate will use this misinformation to continue to take the economy further down against their own interests...all over junk science.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Dimwit Sawyer
May 19, 2009 - 11:35 ET by GothampcDoes Dimwit Sawyer realize that a rise in fuel cost means a rise in consumer goods prices? In a recession, people don't want to see the price of groceries go up.
It was my understanding that
May 19, 2009 - 11:48 ET by SnappyIt was my understanding that gasoline was already taxed? In fact were the higher prices thus less driving not responsible for the budget shortfall in the federal highway funds last year?.(there is a lesson here somewhere).. Or not, guess I just misunderstood, good thing we have crack reporters like Sawyer to help me keep my finger on the pulse of America.
As a former poor person I
May 19, 2009 - 11:56 ET by 10thAmendmentAs a former poor person I would like to point out an inconvienient fact. The people hit hardest by any leftist, high tax, soak the rich, loophole closing program are those who can least afford it.
When I was financially challanged, (dirt poor) my automobiles tended to 10 to 20 years old when I got them. They got the worst possible gas mileage. I paid more in gas taxes per week than those who made much more and drove the same distances.
I might have been able to afford a newer car but, the Democrats in congress had elliminated the interest deduction for auto loans - to soak the rich.
No country has EVER taxed itself into prosperity.
These people need to put their egos into storage and try to live a few months on an average peosons salery. Think of it as investigative reporting.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Lower income folks
May 19, 2009 - 13:14 ET by well99Will be hit hardest as always by these taxes. As you have stated. Now my question for all these liberal elites is. If you are so anxious to pay higher taxes why do you have accountants to give you tax breaks? Buffet and all of them pay others to keep them from paying out on their income but whine about taxes not being high enough.If you want higher taxes dont take tax breaks.
Fuel Standards Anti-Family
May 19, 2009 - 12:28 ET by deerjerkydaveThis fuel standard is actually anti-family. How can manufacterers produce larger vehicles and meet these standards? You will have to be among the rich in order to afford such a specialty vehicle. Cutting emissions and shrinking families is the only way to arrive at the liberal utopia.
If the libtards had any brains they'd wake up to the fact that population growth is not a problem in the United States with national growth rates below 1%.
I'm glad my wife and I
May 19, 2009 - 12:39 ET by MrSnugglesI'm glad my wife and I bought our SUV (for the sake of our future children) when we did.
As some one already noted...
May 19, 2009 - 12:52 ET by mvfreemanDue to obvious geographical differences in area europeans don't have as far to drive. They don't put nearly as many miles on their cars.
And while their governments may claim they tax to help the environment it is obvious they use it as a nice chunk of revenue to offset their generous gov't benefits, instead of raising already high income taxes. And the people over there are hardly happy about it.
Here is an article from 2000 about how some europeans were driving to different countries to find cheaper gas...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/06/world/gas-taxes-send-europe-drivers-on-road-trips.html?pagewanted=2
Sawyer?
May 19, 2009 - 14:15 ET by okiehawk44You are one of the elites who cannot fathom those of us who must drive to work and are not driven to work. You do not have to worry about the cost of fuel because you are rich. You have toured Europe and dined in only the finest places and slept in the best hotels and were introduced only to European elites like yourself. How could you possibly understand us? You can't darling and that's just the truth. Individual European countries are tiny compared to America and NYC is not similar to other parts of this country. Oh, one more thing honey. Europeans pay more for fuel because they have none of there own -- we do. You and Barack just don't want to use it because you want to be thought of as cosmopolitan.
Europe & USA - Apples and Oranges
May 19, 2009 - 14:16 ET by IndyAdamDiane is a typical lefty moron who could not see the obvious reasons we, in the U.S., cannot afford a Euro-style gas tax, if it were slapped into her overly-cosmetically-corrected face.
Just for kicks, let's point a few of the really important ones out to her:
1) GEOGRAPHY: The geography in Europe is much more tightly compacted compared to the wide open spaces between "point A and Point B" in the U.S. In Europe, it is much easier to drive from one major city to another. In the U.S., it is not uncommon to have to drive 200-500 miles between major cities.
2) MASS TRANSIT - Europe has a well-established, well-run mass-transit system for those distances which make it economically unfeasible for Euros to travel by car. Because of our more wide-open geography, it would send our national debt FAR beyond what we have been force-fed to date, to make M-T to rival that of Europe's. Amtrak or the ever-shrinking Greyhound are our only disagreeable options (and we won't open that can of worms right now).
Say we had a wonderful, new coast -to- coast mass-transit system and a Euro-style gas tax were imposed on cars and trucks in the U.S. In order for most middle-americans to take advantage of it, they would have to "drive" great distances to the nearest station serving the system. Myopic city-living folks like Diane Sawyer could not see the terrible toll this would take on middle Americans (not that she gives a Sh!t). Consider, also, what economic effect it would have when folks would just "stay home", instead of spending their dollars on vacation in cities they cannot afford to travel to because of the EU-Style gas tax.
3) TRUCKING INDUSTRY - You want to see our economy go fully in the Sh!tter? Impose gas taxes on our trucking industry. They, of course, would have to pass their incredibly increased costs to their customers, who would then have to pass it on to, you guessed it, "us", consumers. Absolutely EVERYTHING you buy is transported, at some point, by TRUCKS. That means the average consumer would be hosed by such a tax plan. Trains, you say? Sure, trains can and are used for a great deal of coast-to-coast shipping. But, again, the U.S. is a wide-open country, for the most part, so TRUCKING would have to be involved at one time or another.
Of course, Diane and her ilk have more money than they know what to do with, so, like I said before, they don't give a sh!t.
Just sayin.
Diane has a real short memory
May 19, 2009 - 15:12 ET by mvfreemanOr selective memory.
Her own network had this story just last summer...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/10/2269546.htm
Trucker strikes caused havoc in several countries.
No Common Sense
May 19, 2009 - 14:42 ET by adamsmithThere really is a lack of common sense these days. Didn't this idiot see what happened when gas was $4.50 a gallon after the bubble burst with housing and the community reinvestment act? I can understand President Saul Alinsky Jr. trying to ruin the economy for socialist purposes, but Diane Sawyer is just an out of touch elitist idiot who probably has a driver and limo for work as part of her contract. She's barely an American.....
Sawyer's Personal Feelings on the Subject....
May 19, 2009 - 15:33 ET by StogieGuy...were so obvious that it was sickening. I caught this interview and just couldn't believe how clearly insistent she was on the "we should raise taxes" point. Of course, the Obamaite never said that they wouldn't do this. If anything, she grimaced lest Sawyer ruin the surprise.
These people live in such an ivory tower that it is unbelieveable that we permit them to have the influence that they do. Sawyer, for instance, makes a huge salary and affords to live in a swanky Manhattan apartment, no doubt. She need not drive to work because it's close by and her chauffer can take her there and back each day. As for the rest of her neighbors, well they can take a subway, train or walk. Those horribly selfish people driving SUVs in suburban Dallas or St. Louis are as foreign to her as an Iranian is.
These idiots have no clue. No clue that we can't be "like Europe" for the many reasons already well described above. No clue that people can't just live "near work" because of the cost. They have no concept. All they know is that a few extra bucks to fill up the gas tank for that occassional weekend to the Hamptons is nothing to them, but it will somehow 'save the planet.' They give no thought whatsoever to the big picture here. None. And, they couldn't care less. Rules are for other people to follow.
This attitude was on full display this morning - as it is each day on the mainstream TV "news" shows. It's nauseating.
I'll say one thing: Obama will not have to do what Chavez is now doing to Globovision (a station critical of him). After all, the media are already His servants and do His bidding. Get a clue America!
Yes, please drive
May 19, 2009 - 16:01 ET by George S PattonYes, please drive productivity into the ground with more taxes, it will only serve to toss out obama and his useful idiots that much quicker. I would love to see Diane have to take the subway. Get rid of the limo that picks her up everyday and let her carpool with the other network retards.
Gas in a Limosine?
May 19, 2009 - 18:03 ET by MCPO AirdaleI guess the limosine that picks up Ms. Sawyer in the morning and takes her home after work, runs on love and unicorn flatulance?
Some people have to drive to work, both ways! Some have to pick up their children, go grocery shopping, etc. Not everyone in the U.S.A. lives in Manhattan.
She is s-o-o-o out of touch!
Hey Diane, what about the "little guy?"
May 19, 2009 - 20:08 ET by R D HelmAfter all, aren't you limo libs always wringing your hands over the "less fortunate?"
Just who, exactly, do you think such a hideous tax is going to impact the most?
Idiot.
-Dave
Dave... "Idiot" is putting
May 19, 2009 - 20:47 ET by bigtimerDave...
"Idiot" is putting it nicely.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
She is brilliant!!!!
May 19, 2009 - 20:41 ET by pagg30I was trying to find a way to shorten my commute. Silly me, i didn't realize raising gas taxes would allow me to work from home.
Where do they grow these people?? Do they really think people just drive around aimlessly to waste fuel?
Hey i have a great idea. How about a jet fuel tax? Any aircraft carrying less than 50 people pays a $200 per gallon lear jet liberal gas guzzler tax. Any limo not used for proms, weddings or funerals pays a $10 per gallon limo lib gas guzzler tax. Shut up and pay your 'fair share'. Any takers???
40% of what i make isn't enough?? Now you have to tax the way i get there. I am fed up with your flawed logic.
Re brilliant
May 19, 2009 - 20:58 ET by slickwillie2001Yea, I'd like to see these liberal media glitteratis' faces when instead of the usual 24-foot black limousine to pick them up in the morning, there's a Prius waiting in their drive for them, and they have to sit in the front seat beside the working-class driver.
slick
May 19, 2009 - 21:22 ET by well99Forget the Prius.Put a Chevy Geo there for them to go to work.
A different kind of bias
May 19, 2009 - 23:55 ET by UnsaneYes, it is painfully obvious that this elitist b***h is a hardened Leftist and cannot wait to pay more and more money in taxes. (Diane, sweetie, why not lead by example and volunteer to pay those tax rates that makes Europe so much better than this country?)
But let's change direction; other posters have touched on this. There is another form of bias at work here. It is a NYC bias.
All of these elitists seem to think that the United States is much like the Northeast, with dense populations that make mass transit feasible. Granted, I have spent less than a day of my life total in NYC itself; I have been elsewhere in the Northeast as well. But I can imagine quite easily living in NYC and NOT having, or needing, a car; especially if one were to live on, say, Manhattan.
Problem is, not all of America is like that. These Leftists - and indeed others from that part of the country - are in for a severe culture shock if they were to visit, say, San Antonio or Houston. San Antonio is, I believe, the 8th biggest city in the country. Houston is #4. Both cities use buses for mass transit, though Houston has one light rail line that connects downtown to the Medical Center and Reliant Stadium. Other than that, your options are limited, because the populations of the cities are not compact like NYC or Chicago. S.A. and Houston are by no means unique; in fact, in this regard I'd say that they are in fact typical.
Maybe it would help if these elitist snobs would take occasional trips west of the Mississippi. Or maybe, just west of the Hudson for starters. But then again, they being the all-knowing Leftists...maybe not.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)