I just read the link and Sullivan didn't say any such thing. What he said was "Now I know I just came out as a non-driver, and so full disclosure is unnecessary. But the low taxes on gas in this country surely are a bad idea". He then went on to give the real reasons for his position. He was just trying to get the driving issue out of the way so that people wouldn't think he didn't care about gasoline taxes because, well, he's a non-driver so whatever, tax away! I guess it didn't work.

Why mention it if it doesn't factor into his reasoning? I'm a non-driver yet don't see how that should change my ideological opposition (as a fiscal conservative as Sullivan claims to be as well) to raising taxes on anything, much less gas.

He mentioned it because if he didn't someone else would have in order to discredit his position. His position didn't have anything to do with his not driving, however. Read what he said again. It is pretty clear.

Actually, he might not think his non-driving factors into his decision, but it clearly relates to his lack of awareness about how important driving is in certain parts of this really huge country. While a monster gas tax may have benefits, it certainly isn't an "easy" way to do anything, the way Sullivan seems to think it is. Easy in the densely populated urban jungle perhaps, but those of us in the boonies have a different perspective.

Every day I deal with people convicted of DUI who are about to lose their licenses. Every day we hear about how losing the ability to drive will seriously impact their lives. What Sullivan proposes will have the same effect on every working poor person out in the sticks who needs his car to get to work, and unlike suspending a drunk driver's license, the people Sullivan's plan will hurt haven't done anything wrong.

And the only reason he thinks it's "easy" is because he doesn't drive himself. God bless Karol for looking past her own self interest to see the problems of raising the cost of living for other people. (Isn't that the sort of thing we right-wingers never do?)

I was not debating the issue of tax increases - my problem was a basic lack of reading comprehension on her part. If you want to argue against Sullivan's position on gasoline taxes that is fine, just don't put words in his mouth that he didn't say and then complain that he wrote a "dumbass post."

But it is a dumbass post, as least the way Sullivan presents it. There's an intelligent way to argue for an increased gas tax, but to make it, Sullivan has to respond to real criticisms, which requires him to at least be aware of reasons people think this is a bad idea.

"Here's an easy way to help ease the budget deficit, increase our fuel efficiency, wean us a little off Middle East petroleum and generally help the U.S. economically and in foreign policy. Yet the very idea of raising taxes on gasoline is regarded as so completely anathema you might as well propose nominating Osama bin Laden for president." Then, at the end, So why not? Beats me. But this irrational embrace of cheap gas is about as close to a national consensus as you'll ever get in this polarized country. Go figure. Show me where in his argument he displays any sense of awareness of how his proposal would affect those of us who live in flyover country.

Either he's dishonestly ducking legitimate issues, or he posted a dumbass post. Since I like Sully, I hope it's the latter. Dumbassery is more easily treated.

I think we should raise taxes significantly on gasoline. I am a fiscal conservative and prefer this over taxes on income.

Taxes on wages discourages work and taxes on investment income discourages capital accumulation. If you tax gasoline, it will discourage gas guzzlers. You will have less pollution and less dependency on OPEC.

Unfortunatly Bush encourages gas guzzlers by giving huge tax breaks to buyers of heavy vehicles. Originally meant to subsidize commercial vehicles such as heavy trucks but Bush has lowered the weight to include the bigger passenger SUVS. Encouraging both the car manufacturers to make their SUV's larger and the consumer to buy the larger SUV to qualify for the tax break.

Way to go Bush, way to help the environment and conserve, just like you always say you do. NOT.

Gas is already taxed at 50 cents a gallon here in Ohio and I feel that's too high. If you raise the gas tax further you don't just affect those who drive you also affect anyone who buys anything that needs to be shipped.

OPEC does not have a huge impact on our gas prices (but they do have an impact)we only get roughly 16% of our oil from OPEC nations the reason prices are up now is we lack necessary refining capacity.

Scott:

It matters little whether we buy our oil from OPEC or Mexico because the price is set from the intersection of global supply with global demand. OPEC control a significant fraction of oil production and most of the low cost production. They artificially keep global supply low to keep the price high.

And if taxes encourage conservation, then I would rather be far happier paying higher taxes than paying more money to OPEC.

Dan

However, if OPEC keeps the price of oil too high, they make it profitable for high cost production countries, like the US, to increase production.

There is a limit- I have no idea what it is, but at 50$ a barrel, there would be virtually no unemployment in Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska.

I've been saying all along. Sullivan is no good for our party. He lures you along, then reveals his self-centered view. Bad man.

here is a good link on tax increase vs a more laws for pollution in cars (like beter gas milage)

Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5159&sequence=0

Although the loss in America's GDP is not counted in the GAS Tax, and that is what would take the biggest hit i think.

cube

Another intresting fact.
And remember this when ever anyone brings up Europe or the EU.

They are half our size, with a large population. That translates into a much higher population density, very easy to walk and build soild public transportation.

cube

Ain't nothing going on with Andy. He was just being cute.

Bridget, My point is I don't believe him. It has to play into his decision making. The only reason Sullivan is ok with this tax is because it doesn't affect him. He could make all the innoculating comments he wants, it's obvious it's untrue.
Paul, Can you cite an article that proves what you're talking about? Because, I think, that you are mixing up the tax loophole for the Hummer (which has zero to do with Bush) with some other farflung fantasy of yours.
Dan, I can't believe you're saying this. Tax on gasoline restricts movement of goods and limits the ability of certain businesses to function. How can you be a 'fiscal conservative' and be ok with that?

Karol:

I don't like taxes, but given that the government spends money, we need to have taxes. Which taxes should we have? Income Tax? Social Security Tax? Medicare Tax? Corporate Profit Tax? Capital Gains Tax?

Like all taxes, it will impose costs on certain activities. Certain businesses may not survive but that is true with whatever tax regime we have.
This tax will mainly hit those individuals who drive a lot and drive vehicles with poor fuel economy. But the higher tax on gasoline means other activities and people will be taxed less.

I prefer gasoline taxes over other taxes for the reasons I stated above (less pollution, less dependence on foreign oil).

Which taxes would you rather raise?

Dan

Dan, I would raise no taxes. I would cut spending. Raising taxes gives the government more money to waste. Conservative thinking 101.

Sullivan is just mad at Bush for supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage if that is what is necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

Sullivan is, of course, openly gay (I'm not saying that to be derogatory...he openly admits it and this factors into his reasoning).

So I think you see Kerry trying to do anything he can to take implicit and sometimes explicit shots at Bush and help Kerry. He knows he just can't come out and support Kerry because this would be too great of a reversal from some of his previous stands, and so he does dumb things like try to in a subtle way defend the gas tax idea.

So I think you will continue to see Sullivan drift more and more towards the Kerry camp, only because he has this grievance with Bush.

Correction in my above post:

Where I write:
So I think you see Kerry trying to do anything he can to take implicit and sometimes explicit shots at Bush and help Kerry.

I meant:
So I think you see *Sullivan* trying to do anything he can to take implicit and sometimes explicit shots at Bush and help Kerry

What I wrote before wasn't accurate, my mistake. Bush did not lower the weight instead he wants to raise the amount of the tax break from 25,000 dollars to 75,000 dollars for buying a large SUV.

When created this tax break was MEANT for heavy equipment like farm and construction equipment. Over the past few years big ass powerful SUV's have surpassed the weight limit to qualify for the break. And as I said before, this encourages both the car manufacturers to make their SUV's larger and the consumer to buy the larger SUV to qualify for the tax break.

Instead of closing this loophole, Bush wants to make it worse by providing even more insentive to build and buy huge gas guzzlers. Way to go Bush!!
Bush can help you pollute, become more oil dependent and pay for your SUV with my tax money.

Currently their are about 40 passenger vehicles that that qualify. This number is only going to grow with these kind of policys.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0301/20/a01-64218.htm

Somethings I would like to see done:

1. Instead of the 75,000 dollars break to buy a Lincoln Navigator how about 75,000 dollar to buy high mileage vehicles. That is an environmentally responsible tax break.

2. Raise mileage per gallon standards to reflect advances in fuel efficient engine technology.
Engines are getting more fuel efficient. That sound like a great thing right? Well it's really not in the SUV industry because a more efficient engine translates into making a heavier vehicle so any benefit is cancelled out.

Example: a 4000 pound SUV in 1998 that got 14 miles per gallon. In 2000 a better engine is developed that would give the same 4000 pound SUV 20 miles per gallon. Instead of doing this, the industry make the SUV bigger so now it's a 5000 pound SUV that is still only getting 14 miles per gallon.
In 2004 the 4000 pound SUV could get 25 miles per gallon but instead the industry says hey, with this engine we can make a 7000 pound car that gets 14 miles per gallon.

3. Don't increase the gas tax. Intead Tax car sales based on mileage per gallon.
Higher mileage = higher tax
Lower mileage = lower tax