AP Goes Vague on GM's Akerson Aching For 'As Much As' $1 a Gallon Gas Tax Hike
Early Tuesday morning, David Shepardson and Christina Rogers at the Detroit News ("GM's Akerson pushing for higher gas taxes") reported that General/Multi-Government Motors CEO Dan Akerson "wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars."
Later in the interview, Akerson was much more emphatic about what he would like to see done immediately:
"You know what I'd rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas," Akerson said.
You don't have to be a Republican to puke at the prospect of a permanent 50-cent or $1 gas tax hike, Dan. Such a levy would likely cause the high gas price-driven retail malaise of the past few weeks (which I have witnessed first-hand) to keep going indefinitely.
At the self-appointed nation's news gatekeeper, the Associated Press, Tom Krisher pretended that the Detroit News interview never happened, even though the News's current article time stamp is about 14 hours earlier than AP's, and referred to Akerson's aching for a tax increase in only the vaguest terms in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of 19 in a report on GM's annual meeting:
Akerson also said that if the government wants to move people toward more fuel-efficient vehicles, it should consider raising the gasoline tax to keep gas prices high rather than requiring automakers to increase mileage.
"It helps with our deficits, at the same time may change consumer behavior, and the automotive companies will try to meet that demand," he said.
The specifics in the Detroit News interview were noted at CNNMoney.com and almost nowhere else in the establishment press.
There was no sound reason for Krisher to avoid reciting Akerson's specific quoted per-gallon tax amounts, or for the other wire services to ignore it, as appears to be the case based on a Google News search on "Akerson gas tax" (not in quotes) shows. The search returns 49 items, (it looks like 298, but it's really 49), none of which besides the AP and CNN are from establishment press outlets.
Oh, I'm sorry. There is one reason for news outlets to avoid Akerson's specfics, especially at the Associated Press. As the nation's news gatekeeper, the AP seems to have decided that one of its important tasks is to cover for the President, Vice President, and Obama administration apparatchiks -- of which Akerson is one, at least until the government fully divests of its ownership -- when they say anything wrong or unwise. In this particular case, the AP know that if it doesn't provide specifics, most of its subscribing news and broadcast outlets won't go beyond what the wire service feeds them. Without the specifics, most newspersons will likely believe that the story is unimportant.
Why subscribers are willing to pay for omissions such as these which seem more often than not any more to be deliberate is beyond me.
Well, I hope Krisher and AP enjoyed their walk in the park with GM last night:

Don't they make a pretty couple?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
When did Mr Akerson get a divorce....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 4:03pm.
....from reality.
What Mr Akerson could do is go over to Ford Motor Company and learn how to run a company that makes a profit instead of hoping the government will force people to buy his products.
Wow
Submitted by Brad90956 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 5:16pm.
"You know what I'd rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas," Akerson said.
Gas going down??? The last time I filled up my tank, gas was at $3.87/gallon.
A $1.00 tax on gas??? Yeah, that wouldn't hurt anyone. While we're at it why not just make it a $2.00 tax to bring the total to $6.00/gallon. I'm sure that companies wouldn't pass that on to the consumers.
Unbelievable
He also doesn't mention
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:10pm.
how that extra dollar would affect everything we buy, which would leave even less money to buy a Barrymobile.
I can't think of a better reason....
Submitted by notinstl on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 5:18pm.
....to never buy a GM product again.
Akerson must have taken economics from that Goolsbee goober
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 8:12pm.
No wonder Government Motors is a money pit.
BTW, Akerson, you owe us taxpayers $14 trillion, so I suggest you stop your whining and get busy building cars that might actually sell instead of pushing deathtraps of government approved transportation sh*tboxes on us.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Suggestion for all Texans
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:15pm.
We in TX, this great truck-driving state, needs to run Chevrolet and GMC outta here.
Buy a Ford. Hell, buy a Toyota truck, as they are made in San Antonio!
DO NOT touch Chevys or GMC.
That blithering idiot...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You're damned right!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:15pm.
I drive a 97 F-150, 4,6Liter V8 Engine, considered a light V8. It still runs great, got 156,000 miles on it, and I still get 22-25 miles to the gallon, which is great for a 4,000 pound vehicle. (for those of you who think that's bad gas mileage, I refer you to the Ford Edge or Fusion or some other 4-cylinder crap-mobile that they were forced into making that weigh about 2000 pounds or less and get 30 miles to the gallon. For a vehicle to weigh twice as much and get 25mpg, that's BLOODY AWESOME!)
Now sooner or later, I'm gonna have to give the truck up when it starts to give up the ghost(might be a while yet, was told with good care and maintenance, it could go 150,000 more), but if and when I do, it will NEVER be a Chevy or GM. Right now, I'm not thrilled with the way the F-150s look now(prefer the aerodynamic style, good on mileage for that), but I still have a few years left, who knows, the model could change again.
I had considered a Tundra too. I still do. One of my co-workers drives a bitching dark red Tundra with a crew cab and it gets 19 miles to the gallon. Not bad for a 5.7 liter V8 with 380+ horse power.(I'll double check the stats, but pretty sure that's what they are)
But GM stands for GOVERNMENT MOTORS! Government being the bad word right now, I wouldn't take their vehicles if I were given a million dollars, except I'd give it to someone else and buy a Ford F-150 or Nissan Tundra (still kinda iffy on SUV like the Expeditions).
I know a couple of people who went and got the Chevy Camaro, only because it was in Transformers and I said "I hope it runs well for a government vehicle." Got some dirty looks, but there it is.
-Jon
Akerson needs to go just like Obama and Soros
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:24pm.
I'm sick of people thinking government as a tool to run people's lives. Taxing people to induce a behavior is NOT what our country was founded on. This is getting way to close to the U.S.S.R. where the government decided what would be produced, and that was what the people would want.
Government Motors Plan For Success
Submitted by aposematic on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 10:33am.
Force people to buy your crappy cars instead of making cars people actually might want to buy; now that's a plan made in heaven if you are a Government Dictator.