ABC's George Stephanopoulos has shown that he's bi-partisan when it comes to advocating tax hikes. Before the election, he lectured Republican Senate candidate Stephen Laffey: "If the deficit continued to grow, it's not responsible to say you're never going to raise taxes." On Sunday, he pushed Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a Democratic candidate for President, to call for higher taxes on energy. Stephanopoulos contended that "just about every expert on energy says the best way to become energy independent is to raise the price of oil and gas, to have a serious energy tax. Why not call for it?" Stephanopoulos followed up by pointing to Europe as a model to emulate: "Couldn't we become independent much more quickly if we had the kind of energy tax you see in Europe?"
This item was first posted as part of the MRC's CyberAlert.
A September 3 NewsBusters item recounted Stephanopoulos' Labor Day weekend trip to the Ocean State:
In an "On the Trail" segment from Rhode Island on Sunday's This Week, ABC's George Stephanopoulos lectured Stephen Laffey, the Republican primary challenger to incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee, about taking a pledge to not raise federal income taxes: "If the deficit continued to grow, it's not responsible to say you're never going to raise taxes." When Laffey pointed out how Ronald Reagan's tax cuts "worked very well," Stephanopoulos retorted: "Ronald Reagan also increased taxes." After Laffey touted the benefits of the Bush tax cuts, an exasperated Stephanopoulos resignedly concluded: "So it's 'read my lips,' you're never going to vote to raise taxes?"
For the interview aired on the December 3 This Week, Stephanopoulos traveled to Concord, New Hampshire. The exchange about energy policy:
George Stephanopoulos: "You also have said that we have to have bold ideas for energy independence and your theme is 'courage to change.' Just about every expert on energy says the best way to become energy independent is to raise the price of oil and gas, to have a serious energy tax. Why not call for it?"Tom Vilsack: "Well, let me suggest that I'm not quite sure all of the experts necessarily agree with that. I think that there are three issues here. The first issue is Americans have to be encouraged to conserve more. And to do it in ways that will not necessarily disrupt the basic standard of living. We as a national government need to sit down with the auto industry and unions to figure out ways in which we can be best in class in mileage standards, not worst in class. There's no reason why we can't advance mileage standards in this country. We need to take a look at renewable fuels, and we need to basically create opportunities for the market to allow this industry to grow rapidly as we did in Iowa."
Stephanopoulos: "All valuable, but couldn't we become independent much more quickly if we had the kind of energy tax you see in Europe?"
Vilsack: "Not necessarily. Not necessarily because people will end up making decisions to take other parts of their disposable income or discretionary income and shift it as they did when gas was at $3. There was a lot of griping about it but people still used their vehicles, so you have to recognize the reality of America today. There need to be new transportation systems. There needs to be urban planning and new materials used for airplanes and the like, but we need to motivate the economy to create these new opportunities and we're not doing that right now. We're just sort of -- we're just sort of continuing the status quo. We're locked and the reason we're locked is because we have an administration that is encouraging us to be fearful, to think about today, not to think about tomorrow..."
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Do the well-to-do leftists k
December 4, 2006 - 11:45 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDo the well-to-do leftists keep calling for these tax hikes on energy so they can drive their SUVs anywhere they want without any traffic because rest of us won't be able to afford gasoline?
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
You got that right Mean Gene
December 4, 2006 - 12:20 ET by SportPoliticsYou got that right Mean Gene. Seven bucks a gallon with Gores $4.00 per gallon energy tax doesn't sound like anything would be inexpensive anymore.
I suppose the congresscritters would make all sorts of BIG$ deals for " transportation energy tax allowance deductons ". Just imagine, they could make millions in campaign contributions for the " discount price " they sell - err - legislate for the trucking industry and Boston city public transportation and all the rest.
Hey, they could control the masses so much easier.
Energy
December 4, 2006 - 11:52 ET by Jerry MackGeorge Stephanopoulos sounds like he has been studying the Al Gore and Barbara Boxer play book.
Reagan raised taxes...?! Did
December 4, 2006 - 13:17 ET by TruthMongerReagan raised taxes...?! Did he support abortion, too?
Terrorists are not Muslims, Nazi's were not Christians, etc, etc...
I can't help but wonder if
December 4, 2006 - 12:02 ET by lnthompI can't help but wonder if Stephanopoulos has ever really looked into how taxes work. Does he somehow imagine that all of the revenue from energy taxes will actually be spent on R&D for energy independence? Does he think masses of people are suddenly going to be willing to save perhaps $2 per week to spend 3 to 10 times as long on their morning and evening commutes, taking buses and trains instead of a car? What does he have in mind for the poor who have jobs and homes in locations that don't have a bus connection?
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
Last I checked, none of the E
December 4, 2006 - 12:12 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveLast I checked, none of the European countries were "energy independent" they all still import petroleum products, so I don't know where Stephy gets the notion that Europe's high energy taxes has made them energy independent.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
You hit the nail squarely on
December 4, 2006 - 14:07 ET by GalvanicYou hit the nail squarely on the head, Mean One. Stephanopoulus and his crowd seem to think that Western European economic and social policies are ideal for the US, but that's because they understand little of the details beneath the headlines. I haven't heard George or his friends advocate the construction of more nuclear power plants, which is what France relies on. Building more nuke plants in the US and opening up the oil field in ANWAR would steer us closer to energy independence. But they're against that too.
A rather disturbing inconvenience for Leftists
December 4, 2006 - 14:21 ET by UnsaneI wonder if George and his friends know that 70% of France's power comes from nukes?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Try 75%. Just wrote another p
December 4, 2006 - 14:59 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTry 75%. Just wrote another paper for school on why we should switch to nuclear power here in the U.S. We currently have about 21% nuke...it is shameful that France has a leg up on us...even if this is the only thing.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Dr. Love,Yeah, France has &qu
December 4, 2006 - 15:42 ET by Chris NormanDr. Love,
Yeah, France has "a leg up on us" in one more way than you mean...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Didn't you mean France has 'm
December 5, 2006 - 19:00 ET by m36b1Didn't you mean France has 'more "hands up!" on us' in more way than one? Just how many ways can a Frenchman surrender?
If the Europeans do it, it ju
December 4, 2006 - 12:03 ET by Chris NormanIf the Europeans do it, he knows that it just has to be good...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Energy Taxes
December 4, 2006 - 12:15 ET by Six String SpiffWhen are these self important Demofascists going to stop banging this drum? I am sick of the constant hypocrisy comming from these people. They constantly claim they are for the little person. Well who is going to be able to afford their..."evironmetally sound" energy prices. Certainly not the little people. This isn't Europe, you dope. We are very much capable of developing and integrating new energy, but some rich DEMOCRATS don't tlike that idea. Cape wind? Kennedy's VIEW might be hampered.. God forbid. Same thing with flip floppa Kerry.
The solution to a problem is not tax the bejesus out it so no one can afford it anymore. Hence, no one uses it anymore. Wake up you liberal retards. If people weren't throwing their salaries at the government to help fund one of the largest barrels of pork; I.E. The Big Dig, then we MIGHT have enough money to EFFECTIVELY research more energy solutions, and hell, live a little closer to our jobs, and not have to spend so much on that horrible economic pollutant we hard working American call gasoline. Fools
PS Its good to be back
Not to mention the left's puz
December 4, 2006 - 12:27 ET by Dave RNot to mention the left's puzzling war on Wal-Mart, where most of the clientele are supposedly dim supporters.
Last I checked, Europe was ve
December 4, 2006 - 12:38 ET by bassndudeLast I checked, Europe was very energy dependant. Every drop of oil they get, is imported. Step, in his infinate wisdom, has over looked the obvious, (again). Who would get hurt with this tax? Everybody. But the poor more than the rest. The poor would pay more of their meager income to transportation, for food, for heating their homes, or apartments. Stephanopoulos is promoting making the poor, poorer.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You're right Bass, it's all p
December 4, 2006 - 12:46 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou're right Bass, it's all part of their evil plan. If they can make the poor poorer and the "middle class" poor as well, then we will (in theory) "need" the socialistic programs because we will all need to rely on the government for our support.
The thing that puzzles me is why the elite or "wealthy" leftists desire a system like that. They must not consider the possibility of losing their wealth (either by misfortune or by force) and ending up being a commoner. Especially with all the empirical evidence throughout the past century and longer demonstrates that socialist/communist systems are riddled with fraud and ultimately fail (after millions of people needlessly lose their lives, of course).
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Mean Gene, They dont worry ab
December 4, 2006 - 12:55 ET by bassndudeMean Gene, They dont worry about their wealth. The company they work for will foot the bill for them. Its no money out of their pocket. They will have the money for the goverment program. It will come from the energy tax. That money will not go to R&D. It will be used to offset the cost. (Dont ask me to do the math, it makes me dizzy.) At least untill the money runs out. After that, they will cut the program, but not the tax. Thats the way it works.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Elite Insurance
December 4, 2006 - 13:17 ET by UnsaneMean Gene, if the government is confiscating money from the poor and middle class, upward mobility will cease, further entrenching the elite. Take a look at Europe for a great example. Where is the incentive to move up in Europe? And why would you if the government is pampering and babying you, just as the Leftists who routinely post here want our government to do?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
bassnfishingdude - Europe is becoming more energy dedendent
December 4, 2006 - 13:56 ET by Gary Hallbassnfishingdude - Right you are. Europe is becoming more energy dedendent, not less. Where in the world Stephanopolous gets off making this stuff up - "Couldn't we become independent much more quickly if we had the kind of energy tax you see in Europe?" - is beyond the pale. One might remember just a couple of years back, Germany for instance, decided to scrap it's nuclear power production in favor of conventional carbon based energy production (supplemented eventually sometime before the sun burns out with "green energy"). Countries like Italy import a large % of their electrical demand from other neighboring country's nuclear production of electrical energy.Here, this is a notable factiod for Steph to chew on:
Sure looks like those energy taxes are working.Footnote: while taking a phone call, I was looking around and came up with this (Washington Post, May 20, 2002):
Care to take odds on some ne
December 4, 2006 - 14:11 ET by BruzillaCare to take odds on some new entitlement program like "gas stamps" would suddenly pop up to help out the poor, thus making them more dependent on the government?
Good thing for Steffi that he
December 4, 2006 - 12:50 ET by Dave RGood thing for Steffi that he has a nice, cushy media position, as he would have never made it as an economist.
"Stephanopolous advocate
December 4, 2006 - 13:06 ET by mattm"Stephanopolous advocates..." Is that what objective journalists do? Advocate for things?
I'll advocate something: All you Liberals who want higher taxes, just send the amount you think is necessary to the IRS. They'll gladly accept it.
No? you don't want to do that? O.K. then shut the hell up!
When you listen to so-called
December 4, 2006 - 17:35 ET by GalvanicWhen you listen to so-called journalists describe themselves and their profession, more than a few will state that they are advocates for 'those without voices.' I've got no problem for people speaking up for other people, but they can't then be true journalists.
Galvanic,Exactly so....a pers
December 4, 2006 - 18:03 ET by BlondeGalvanic,
Exactly so....a person advocating for "those without voices" would properly be called a Social Worker.
And then...Are we to assume
December 4, 2006 - 19:09 ET by lnthompAnd then...Are we to assume they believe Algore is one of "those without voices", since so many reporters are non-stop (and loudly) advocating the theory that humans have caused global warming that's going to destroy the earth in a double-handful of years?
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
lee,I think we'd have to plac
December 4, 2006 - 19:16 ET by Blondelee,
I think we'd have to place Al in a different category than "one without a voice"....perhaps the category of "one with a lot of hot air".
In which case, the media is cheerleading manbearpig's Global Warming mantra.
Disgusting, either way you cut it.
I'm just a dumb-ass t
December 4, 2006 - 13:15 ET by james789I'm just a dumb-ass truck driver who rode the short bus to school, but it seems to me that if you wanted to give energy companies an incentive to develope new energy sources the way to do it would be give them dollar-for-dollar tax cuts. For each dollar they spend on research and development of a viable alternative energy source they get a dollar tax cut. I would guess that they would even jump at 50 cents to the dollar or 25. Of cource that would open up another can of worms when you think about how Exxon's recent "record profits" also brought a lot more money in taxes to the government.
Why do I have to pay property taxes for every mile I drive in Tennessee on top of road use taxes and fuel taxes if I live in another state?
If elected, I vow to repeal the 17th Amendment, change the
minimum military enlistment age to the minimum drinking age and push for term
limits for all politicians in federal government.
taxes
December 4, 2006 - 13:30 ET by iveseenitallRaise the white flag in Iraq and raise your taxes. Watch out, the Demos are coming.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Europe? Energy independent?
December 4, 2006 - 13:58 ET by Evil CapitalistIf Europe is energy-independent then why does it get its panties in a bunch microsecond after Russia's Gazprom slightly flexing its muscles?
I don't think that raising ta
December 4, 2006 - 14:52 ET by sphigelI don't think that raising taxes on oil is a viable solution. I do, however, believe that govt should stop subsidizing oil. Consistently, I believe that govt should not be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy or energy research.
I would however support a reasonable tax on pollutant forms of energy. Simply because it represents an imperfect market transaction. There is nothing anti free market about this notion. Simply speaking, if I buy a book at a bookstore the only people affected by that transaction are the owner of the bookstore and I. However, when I fill my car up with gas not only are the station owner and I affected but society at large is also because of the pollution from my car's exhaust. In this transaction there is an unintended third party and for that reason I would favor a tax on pollutant forms of energy.
Of course the tax level would be fiercely debated but a reasonable level could be attained. This would obviously lead to increased research into alternative forms of energy as would any increase in the price of oil, superficial or not. However, the market would fund the research and not the American people.
My two cents.
Sphigel, you are inco
December 4, 2006 - 18:13 ET by james789Sphigel, you are incorrect in your statement about who all is affected in your example because long before you bought your book, somewhere, someone cut down a tree using tools that burned fuel, then that tree was moved by another tool that burned fuel to a processing plant that used some type of fuel to chip the tree into usable parts then they shipped those parts to other locations where other people used tools that use energy to make paper out of the wood chips, then that paper was transported by truck or by train, both of which burn fuel to the printing shop where tools used energy to print the book then another truck burns fuel to haul the printed books to the store that sells the book that you bought from the store. Also let us not forget about all the people who work at the different places involved in the various steps that most likely drive automobiles that burn fuel to work just so that book is available for you to buy. Then again I could get started on all the people involved in the steps needed to produce the car you drove to the store, so yes in reality, every purchase made affects a lot more people than most people think about.
If elected, I vow to repeal the 17th Amendment, change the
minimum military enlistment age to the minimum drinking age and push for term
limits for all politicians in federal government.
Well, "s" I guess s
December 4, 2006 - 22:59 ET by jdhawkWell, "s" I guess since you want to tax all those mean nasty polluters, you don't mind being taxed yourself for your personal pollution. Yeah, in the scheme of the the enviro wackos if you are breathing (and farting) you are a polluter. That is, if you give off CO2 (supposedly the font of most evil in the enviro wackos world) which you do when you exhale and when you fart you give off Methane (another baddy). So, let's see what we have so far: You are taxed at the local level, the county level, the state level, the federal level. You are taxed via excise taxes at various levels if you use a telephone, rent a hotel room, and buy energy of any sort. Hey! And, "s" after you are gone, your corpse is taxed (death taxes)!
And, your sound proposal is to add still another tax! Yeah, do I hear dimocrat? Go for it, "s."
By the way, the energy industries are some of the most regulated and taxed industries in our country. Oh! "s" when I say the energy industries are highly taxed that means you are highly taxed. Every dollar that they pay in the course of doing business is passed on to the consumer that they serve - you! So, after you get done paying over 1/3 of every dollar of revenue in just federal taxes, then you pay state, county, and local taxes and you pay the taxes for your various government mandated employee programs. Then, you are allowed to sell your product at the pump where about another 1/3 of your revenue goes to taxes - that you pay! While driving away from the pump, "s" don't forget the county use tax and the registration fee to drive that car.
And you want more taxes??? Boy, I will follow you anywhere! What a genius!
I guess I just don't understa
December 4, 2006 - 15:30 ET by paperheadI guess I just don't understand the liberal mentality. They think that by putting a tax on gas it will force us to move to alternative sources of energy. Liberals do not get it that a good percentage of Americans do not live in urban areas where mass transit is readily available. They have alternatives, we don't in middle America. In addition, they don't support nuclear energy either, which in my opinion makes the most sense for a long-term energy source. Liberals won't allow new exploration for oil and hate coal and natural gas. Do they really think we can meet all of our needs on solar and wind power? Lets be real here folks. Liberals haven't a clue on how to solve the energy problem the world faces any more than they know what to do about Iraq. We just let them get some of their power back this year. Lets just make sure they don't get more back in '08!