Shudder, I think I agree with Hillary Clinton

Do you not find it inconsistent that Democrats are protesting the loudest that we are being gouged at the pump, and yet are suggesting gas tax INCREASES? Their concern isn't that we're being gouged, but that they're not the ones doing the gouging.

The Sierra Club has long said that it wanted to see gas prices at $4-5 a gallon, with about half of that in taxes. The problem is, taxes can't be brought down by decreased consumption; prices CAN (witness natural gas, at about HALF its post Katrina highs because nobody bought natural gas last winter).

The proposed tax would drive more Americans into poverty, as the poorest among us cannot AFFORD to upgrade to hybrid vehicles, and the emissions standards put in place by, you guessed it, Democrats, forbid us from employing the more cost effective methods of retrofitting our vehicles to run on ethanol. The suggestion of increased gas taxes is appalling, and, frankly, socialist in principle.

Gideon, I know in the end that any tax placed on the oil companies will likely be borne by the customers. That's a natural effect of the cause of taxation. It's an inescapable truth that most on the left don't understand, and it's one that the (supposedly and hopefully) bright people that run the oil companies would find a loophole or way around no matter how carefully crafted a bill or law would be created to be sure to tax only the oil company, and not have the tax passed along to the customers.

With that said, I don't believe that what Hillary is proposing is the same as what you are most directly aiming at, as gasoline taxes are typically paid at the pump, and yes, borne directly by the customer.

I don't disagree that the costs would impact the poor along the way, and I am not a fan of income redistribution in the style that Democrats typically use -- rob from the rich and give to the poor -- but perhaps that is somewhat needed here. We do need to get people to switch to more efficient vehicles. I'll admit, I've considered and am considering making a switch myself. I'd love to get something like the hybrid Honda Accord, or even better for me, a hybrid Toyota Highlander or perhaps a "green" Saturn Vue. Unfortunately the additional costs for the green versions of these vehicles are more than enough to make them unaffordable for me.

I bought a used vehicle, one that is a bit of a gas guzzler, that was bought based on affordability, size, roominess, ability to haul items and people as necessary. I'd be more than happy to get something used that is more economical and yet fits most of my requirements, but it's far too soon in the hybrid vehicle life cycles to find many used hybrids out there. What few are out there are still priced at a premium over non-hybrid vehicles, which means no matter what we're paying more to try to be green.

There have been various tax breaks in place for people that bought green. Tax credits, tax breaks, rebates, etc. At this point, perhaps we need more direct tax rebates for such purchases, tax rebates fueled by taxes raised on the backs of the oil companies. Tax rebates that are targetted to provide the biggest breaks and biggest assistance to those that take the oldest vehicles off the road, and those which need the assistance the most. (Needs tested, so to say).

Again, I'm not typically a fan of redistributing wealth, but there are times when we have to place the greater good ahead of the needs of the few. It's time that the oil companies and automotive manufacturers lead the way, even if they are forced to do it by helping to pay for it with our own money which is given back to us in tax rebates as we go and buy shiny new vehicles that do everything we are asking.

terp,

When gas prices rose after Katrina, guess what? People started buying more efficient vehicles. Our national consumption has dropped a scant 2%, but it HAS dropped. The price increases are the best way to bring down consumption.

What you (and Hillary Clinton) are proposing, terp, would probably put me out of work, and, as there are limited employment opportunities in our area, probably uproot my family yet again to move elsewhere in search of work. It would have an absolutely DEVASTATING effect on us.

And no, I WON'T take a government check. It's not about pride, it's about the fact that the government routinely uses subsidies to the poor as an identifier in attacking families via the CPS system. Wealth redistribution is a HORRIBLE idea, terp, and the fact that traditional conservatives such as yourself are even considering it has me greatly concerned.

I would be willing to bet that the government, right now, spends more than than 50 million regularly on funding research into technologies that could cut our dependance on oil. 50 million is a pittance, frankly. I would be willing to bet that any noticable tax on oil profits would net that in a year or two spread out over all the companies.

No, you can bet she intendes that tax to be extended indefinately. I think folks who want more taxes on our energy should consider that right now we pay more tax per gallon on gas than is generated in profit for oil companies. Exponentially more in some states. If we pay far more in taxes than in profits to oil companies, maybe the profits aren't the problem.

Oh, and ask yourself how much of that will be 're-appropriated' and sent back to home states as pork. How much will be wasted on trips for government officials to meet at nice hotels to discuss how to get started deciding on how to get ready to put together the commission to study who should decide what kind of research should be done...

Gid, I'm not even proposing a government check go to you. What I'm proposing is that the prices of the hybrid vehicles find themselves reduced via rebates given to automative manufacturers. I don't want money given back directly to buyers. That takes too long and would just find the money spent on other things.

I would like to see the costs of the Hybrids reduced "at the pump" or, more appropriately "on the lot", before purchase. I shouldn't be looking at a $2000 - $6000 (or more) premium to be purchasing a hybrid vehicle. It should be entirely the other way around, and without raising prices on either type of vehicle. I should see that a hybrid vehicle is the same price, or lower priced, than one that uses more fuel. I shouldn't have to be worried about making a decision to be green, and shouldn't have to be "smug" about paying more to help the environment.

What I'm suggesting is get the prices down for buyers of the better vehicles, and use money that comes from profit taxes on the oil companies to do it.

I would be willing to bet that the government, right now, spends more than than 50 million regularly on funding research into technologies that could cut our dependance on oil. 50 million is a pittance, frankly.

Check the numbers again BakerStreet - $50 Billion, Billion with a "B", not million with an "m"

terp, do you really think hybrids are the answer? Hybrids are a sham. My friend was getting 40+, sometime 50+ miles per gallon in 1990 in his geo metro. We have hybrids now that cost more, are immensely more expensive to service, and don't get any better mileage.

"Check the numbers again BakerStreet - $50 Billion, Billion with a "B", not million with an "m"

Ah, misread. Regardless, that's just ten times more money for the government to waste. Do you think the government really has any business promoting technologies in a free market to effect the price of products? If they wanted to promote hybrids or cleaner fuel in terms of the environment that might make sense, but Hillary and the rest don't really give a damn about that. Otherwise they should keep their pink fingers out of business.

This is grandstanding terp, and you're falling for it. This is just making our gas more expensive and making it palatable because we think it is sticking it to the man. We aren't, we're sticking it to ourselves and giving Hillary a payday.

P.S. I just looked and Honda was making a hybrid in 2000 that got 60+ miles per gallon. Until we are using the technologies we had 6 years ago, why would we need to sink 50 million more into it? What will they do with that 50 billion that can't be done right now without it?

Maybe we'll have a $50 billion "just say no" program directed at gas guzzlers. It worked miracles ending drug use in America, didn't it? No, the tax will make gas more expensive, and the money generated isn't needed. I can't see how you can agree with this.

terp, do you really think hybrids are the answer? Hybrids are a sham. My friend was getting 40+, sometime 50+ miles per gallon in 1990 in his geo metro. We have hybrids now that cost more, are immensely more expensive to service, and don't get any better mileage.

Ah, my friend the old Geo Metrox xFi (or however those letters were written).

Been there, and done (almost) that. Had a friend with one of them also, and had one myself, not the super fuel efficient one, as I had to get Automatic Trans (wife never succesfully learned to drive a standard tranny) and thanks to the humid mid-Atlantic climate, had to have A/C to keep cool and keep from sweating to death in the suits I had to wear for work. The best I ever saw was about 28 MPG (on long trips), more typically 26 MPG (give or take) as I zipped around and worried about dodging bigger vehicles (read: all of them) that were on the roads with me.

Geo Metros, Suzuki Swifts, Toyota Yaris, the Honda Fit, and a group of other small vehicles all are what I called "enclosed motorcycles." Just as small, just as dangerous to the occupants when in accidents, barely providing any safety zone at all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to belittle those vehicles, they are great for their purposes and work great in places like the U.K. and Europe where the majority of vehicles on the road are much smaller. They work great here too, provided the majority of the drivers were all using the same type vehicles, and/or provided that the driver is extra cautious and maintains safe speeds, safe distances, etc., to help avoid accidents. (Sadly, too many people aren't that careful in driving period).

They (small cars) also work great if you don't need room, aren't hauling things all around, etc.

Which gets back to the issue of hybrids. Hybrids are an important (to me) part of the solution for helping to bridge over to the potential eventuality that we'll all be driving smaller vehicles. In the U.S.A., it might never happen, but in the meantime, Hybrids can be a great help for bigger vehicles, and even for many smaller ones. A Toyota Prius is a reasonably sized car for most people. There's hauling room, there's passenger room, etc.

A Honda Accord is a nice mid-sized vehicle. A Toyota Highlander is a nice people and thing mover. A vehicle like the "green" Saturn Vue is a nice sized vehicle for hauling people/things.

Without going hybrid in those vehicles, we stand to use orders of magnitude more fuel than we need to, unless we force people to smaller vehicles. With hybrids, we take vehicles that get 20 MPG, and turn them into 30 MPG or more.

So, do I think hybrids are the answer? No. I don't think they are they only answer. I think they are part of a bigger solution. One that gets us better fuel efficiency as we bridge over to newer fuels, more efficient engines, and other longer term solutions. But in the meantime, I think we have to do what we can to reduce our petroleum usage so that we can tell the likes of Chavez (South America), the Iranians, the Saudis and a host of other oil producers to take their products and shove 'em.

The word "tax" is too much of a scary word in todays society. Especially when we have a Gov't that likes wasting money on useless programs, backstabbing countries and lazy Americans.

I'm not to fond of the idea of giving the Gov't more money to, supposely, fix a problem only to see that money squandered on stupid things. And to add a tax that would eventually end up being paid by us, the population, just so that alternative fuel vehicles can be cheaper makes no sense to me cause I will, in the end, be paying for the difference and I by gasoline. And if I never get one I will be paying it for someone else, not to mention that I will be paying more for gas than I already do today. Not sure this idea is of my taste, but then any idea that would require me to have to pay more taxes just to see it all be wasted is not a good idea to me.

The Sierra Club has long said that it wanted to see gas prices at $4-5 a gallon, with about half of that in taxes. The problem is, taxes can't be brought down by decreased consumption; prices CAN (witness natural gas, at about HALF its post Katrina highs because nobody bought natural gas last winter).

I'll follow up my answer to BakerStreet (about hybrids being part of the solution) with a few more words here.

Gid - I can't say I agree with the Sierra Club, but... I think the proof of where they are coming from is the European example. Again, in the U.K. look at the size of the vehicles. A Ford Focus (which we consider a compact car) is considered a mid-sized car there, if not considered a large one.

The majority of the vehicles on the road in the U.K. are what we'd call sub-compact cars. Very tiny things. Think Toyota Yaris or Suzuki Swift or the old Geo Metro type.

What got that result and did away with the bigger fuel guzzlers? Most likely the fact that gasoline costs the equivalent of $6 - $10 a gallon in those areas. Higher costs did force the change and have continued to enforce that change.

I don't believe we need to hand the money to the government, and I hate the idea of giving it to the people that have thus far failed to lead the way (the GMs, Fords, Daimler-Chryslers of the world), but where else do you put the money if you want to get the consumers into the types of vehicles we need them in? Even with $3+ a gallon prices, people are still buying big SUVs, RVs and other guzzlers. We refuse to change because we cling to excuses and needs that might not be realistic, but are just enough to justify (for ourselves) why we should continue to burn gas like there will always be an endless supply.

I think the time for talk on the issue is gone. We are running out of fossil fuels, and we will eventually be forced to use something different. We should attack the issue now, especially given that in doing so we can take money out of the hands of the types of friends we have to keep a constant eye on, as well as taking money out of the hands of known and sworn enemies.

For the record, Baker, in the 1970's, home mechanics could find articles in copies of The Mother Earth news showing them how to make their full size v8 engines into hybrids. I don't know how effective the old hybrids were, but I DO know the technology existed, in theory at least, almost 30 years ago.

I will only agree with Hillary Clinton on environmental iossues if she bitch slaps Ted Kennedy and forces him to stop stonewalling the building of wind turbines because they block his view. FAR MORE of our oil consumption is used in the production of electricity and other industrial applications than will EVER be consumed by the American driver.

Then I really, really don't understand where you are coming from. You admit that we already have the technology to double the fuel efficiency of the average car, and triple it for many. We don't need research to do that, we already can.

Let the oil companies profit. Good for them. let them keep right on jacking it up to $5 a gallon. Then people will decide to change their habits. What you propose is hiking the prices, and diverting it to a government that will misuse the money.

If you are going to do that, why punish us all? You are punishing the people who USE hybrids, since they buy gas too. Why not put a 10% punitive tax on cars that get below 20mpg? If you want to be socialistic about it there are a lot better ways than just robbing from the poor to feed the government.

Then I really, really don't understand where you are coming from. You admit that we already have the technology to double the fuel efficiency of the average car, and triple it for many. We don't need research to do that, we already can.

BakerStreet, there's still that "who comes first, the chicken or the egg" thing to deal with.

Yes, we have technology to get more Hybrids into the system, but as long as they cost more than regular gas burners, people won't pay the premium, at least not as long as there's no economic incentive to do so.

Why pay $2,000 - $10,000 more for a few MPG saved? Bank the money, buy gas, and over the average life of the vehicle, you'll still save money. Screw the environment, screw saving petro, and keep paying the Saudis, the Iranians, or whatever other 'dirty' hands we can for their products.

We have to turn around the equation and get more fuel efficiency out of our vehicles. How we accomplish it needs to be addressed. If we can accomplish it with profit taxes on oil companies -- note I said profit taxes on oil companies, not gasoline taxes -- take the money from the Oil Co. profits.

I don't like it that much either, and again, I know it will probably come from consumers on one-hand, but I would hope it gets back to them in reduced fuel costs if they move to more fuel efficient vehicles.

Oh, another thought to add here - keep in mind that from the Oil Company perspective, getting more hybrids on the road is not what they want to see happen. They don't want more fuel efficiency, they want just the opposite, as anything less than status quo means they aren't selling as much product, and aren't producing as much profit.

I know it would be like feeding their enemy to move us away from petroleum products without helping these companies find their way to a new product to sell in it's place. Which again goes back to the issue of perhaps granting tax credits to them to help make up for the losses they would suffer while bridging the gap over to the next great fuel source.

taxes on the profits of oil companies IS a gasoline tax, because it is just going to be tagged onto the price of gas. The crux of your argument has to be that taking money out of our pocket and sending it to washington will accomplish more people driving fuel efficient cars. I'm not seeing you make that point. It just takes more money out of the economy.

Subsudizing car companies to make hybrids just gets the government eternally involved with propping up the auto industry just as it did with agriculture. Taxing oil profits punishes everyone including those driving fuel efficient cars. This isn't a traditional supply/demand issue. The only way you could make me believe there would be a definate switch is to punitively punish people who drive inefficient cars.

I heard someone quoted the other day that said the consumer use of oil in the US is a drop in the bucket, and if we all used more fuel efficient cars it wouldn't take much of a bite out of our dependance. Empy acts aren't any better than no act at all. If the price of gas gets higher people switch on their own, so punishing oil companies for having high prices seems backwards.

Do oil company profits go to the Saudis? Nope. That fatcat who makes his millions per year is spending and investing that millions per year. If the issue is how much the nasty nations we buy gas from is the issue, then attack them directly. If the issue is people driving inefficient cars, attack THEM directly.

This is just crab-walking around the socialist idea that punishing the wealthy and giving the money to the "people" benefits society. The people won't get the money, though, terp, and we'd be naive to think we would. It would make far, far more sense to impose standards on the auto industry or punitively tax gas guzzlers instead of spreading the pain over everyone.

Again, I'm not typically a fan of redistributing wealth, but there are times when we have to place the greater good ahead of the needs of the few. It's time that the oil companies and automotive manufacturers lead the way, even if they are forced to do it by helping to pay for it with our own money which is given back to us in tax rebates as we go and buy shiny new vehicles that do everything we are asking.

Let me jump in before I read further as I will tell you up front that Gideon is all right, and you are all wrong.  let's take it one step at a time.

You want to tax the tax payer?  That is what you are saying, but you are excusing it as a tax on the oil companies.  If the answer is yes, be honest about it. Dont lie.  That is all Hillary is doing.

Second.  Limit it to 2 years?  Show me a tax, any tax that was supposed to be for a limited time that is no more.  It aint going to happen.  Period.

third.  Target the revenue?  Get real again!  Show me a tax, any tax, that has not become a general tax over time!  SS tax?  It is not just for retirement anymore!

Finally, remember this.  Taxes are a demonstration of power by the corrupted.  And they will do anything to shove their power in your face in the guise of more taxes. It never solves anything, it just gives them more power over your life.

A p.s.  Government is not going to find an alternative to oil.  Private industry is going to. When it becomes profitable to do so.  That is an undeniable fact of history.