Lowest Gasoline Taxes Since the Beginning of the Automobile

Susan Said the following:

Susan Kraemer Says:

July 13th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

The “incentives/rebates, tax credits and that’s the direction the government should continue to go” money has to come from somewhere.

Government can tax us or it can do cap and trade on fossil industries. Those are the only 2 sources of revenue from which it can subsidize our clean energy switch.

Susan: I understand from both ends its really tax dollars, but again the populace does not like it called or submitted as taxes, rebates, incentives etc come across and are accepted in better form by everyone. Do you disagree that rebates and incentives are accepted better than straight up taxes??

The government I believe understands this and should use it. My comments about most not liking taxes I believe is entirely accurate and is more of a reflection of a lack of trust in our government officials of whatever persuasion than anything.

Mounting problems with roads, tunnels, and bridges; accompanied by diminished maintenance revenue from pump taxes are evidence of the leadership problem within Congress and the Executive Branch of our government. Just because the national highway construction program is largely completed, politicians and experts need to periodically (say once every 5 years) analyze 20-year needs for maintenance/improvement, revenues, expenditures, and policy. If our national highway system will not be maintained by the federal program, then each State must be promptly notified to plan accordingly. The same can be said for other national programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. DENIAL AND PROCASTINATION BY POLITICAL LEADERS WILL LEAD TO COLLOSSAL TRAIN WRECKS.

Are subsidies the answer in this era of bloated debt? I THINK NOT.

Existing stealth subsidies need to be eliminated to level the economic playing field. Many current financial problems are rooted in energy and transportation decisions made during the 19th and 20th Centuries. Until the latter part of the 20th Century, the United States has demonstrated a compelling record as a world-class economic enterprise, and technical/management innovator. We have a choice between resumption of this leadership, or preserving ineffective past policies and stealth subsidies which benefit entrenched corporations.

If the first United States Constitution Convention of 55 delegates could produce our revered document between May and September 1787, surely our Congress could establish ongoing program management strategies for the National Highway tax/maintenance program, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

We need LEGISLATIVE SIMPLICITY (setting objectives and standards of performance, establishing milestones and schedules, establishing the budget, and processes for ongoing program oversight), not legislative MICROMANAGEMENT. All States must be treated equally. No exceptions to placate Senator X.

NOW FOCUSING ON OUR KEY NATIONAL ISSUE – ENERGY POLICY – WE NEED KEY BUYIN BY THE NEW CITIZENS, AS RECENTLY STABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT:

Corporate buy-in to our new future may be possible by a COMPREHENSIVE CARBON PRICING AND FINANCIAL TRANSITION PROGRAM which is designed to achieve the following objectives:

a) to promote economic mechanisms for energy choice and National security,

b) to encourage competitive alternative energy supply and conversion technologies,

c) to promote private sector R&D for 21st Century clean energy technologies, and

d) to counterbalance the entrenched stealth subsidies inherited from the 19th and 20th Century era.

If Congress chose simple carbon pricing, in lieu of arcane financial tools, consideration could be given to adopting a National tax schedule with published annual rates, projected out until National security and energy choice objectives are achieved. Carbon pricing accompanied by a financial transition program could promote phase-in of economically beneficial, clean energy technologies (whatever they may be, based on predictable investment economics, NOT unpredictable political edicts) over the next 15 – 25 years.

Many support consideration of a phased consumption tax approach (instead of a casino-like commodity market) to progressively discourage use of dirty fuels, improve national security, and to allow revenue to be used for the financial transition as a “public good” for:

a) PAYING TAX REBATES (using established tax refund tools) to USA citizens and legal residents who file income tax returns (or for those who receive social security benefits) to refund allocated consumption credits;

b) FUNDING CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH, and

c) PAYING DOWN the National Debt.

Our leaders have the responsibility to build a sustainable future for our Nation, sacrificing neither our social order, nor our resources. If up to 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention could do it in 1787, then the 535 serving in today’s Congress and the President should be capable taking action before the imminent train wrecks.

Am I the only person who is disgusted with these polls and marketing companies messing with good policy?

Survey me with MOST questions and I will come out against a gas tax hike. Out of context even more people are against it. In the proper context with the proper questions the number would be higher. Educating the other people would also help.

People would adapt to it over time just as they are not all that upset about the current tax; if we had none, then you’d have trouble just putting any tax on it. Problem is marketing firms hired by politicians will skew the situation even further for political gain and it takes a lot of thinking informed people to survive that. Therein lies the biggest problem: the public is incompetent.