Regarding Mr. Friedman
I have been supporting energy taxes since 1980. For the first two decades I did this very intermittently and sporadically. Since 9/11 I have been giving talks to anyone who will give me a forum in which I can speak.
For the past year Thomas Friedman, the eminent New York Times columnist, has been at first sporadically but now more consistently promoting a gasoline tax. To Mr. Friedman I say welcome aboard. I will also say that I wish I had something to do with his interest in the subject. I think it is terrific that someone of his stature is stepping up to the plate and supporting what could be a resolution of this problem. It will be interesting to see what kind of an impact someone like him can make. If he can get and keep the idea of an energy tax on the table that would be comparable to what Vice President Gore has done with global warming.
In his column, Seeds for a Geo-Green Party (June 16, 2006), he showcases his tax plan in the following way.
“Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called ''The Patriot Tax,'' which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.
“The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.”
Such a plan has the following advantages. The tax is small and less intimidating than the one I have proposed. The rebates more clearly benefit the poor. Monies spent to promote alternatives capture the collective imagination of the conservation set. Such a plan would set America headed in the right direction.
Unfortunately, such a plan would only be a down payment on the road to an effective tax. The tax itself is too small. Gas prices have gone up $1 in the last year with only a minimal effect on behavior. Furthermore, if it is not COLAed (increased with the cost of living) its impact would be gone in a two or three years.
Figuring out who is poor is hard enough but figuring out who has unusual driving needs is legislatively impossible.
At the present time there should be less money collected in the name of Social Security not more. That is a story for a different blog. As for subsidizing clean mass transit and supporting energy research this is the perfect grist for the “there go those tax and spend guys again.” (See also Why Not Use the Money to Support Alternative Energy) Finally, reducing the deficit is a noble goal but the total tax here is $100 billion dollars a year after all the above proposed spending what would be left could be taken up by a middling earmark.
If Mr. Friedman can capture the imagination of the American public I will be on the front lines supporting him. I hope that in the interim he develops an even stronger plan for America.
The following is a link to his website.
http://times.discovery.com/convergence/friedman/addictedtooil/addictedtooil.html
For the past year Thomas Friedman, the eminent New York Times columnist, has been at first sporadically but now more consistently promoting a gasoline tax. To Mr. Friedman I say welcome aboard. I will also say that I wish I had something to do with his interest in the subject. I think it is terrific that someone of his stature is stepping up to the plate and supporting what could be a resolution of this problem. It will be interesting to see what kind of an impact someone like him can make. If he can get and keep the idea of an energy tax on the table that would be comparable to what Vice President Gore has done with global warming.
In his column, Seeds for a Geo-Green Party (June 16, 2006), he showcases his tax plan in the following way.
“Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called ''The Patriot Tax,'' which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.
“The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.”
Such a plan has the following advantages. The tax is small and less intimidating than the one I have proposed. The rebates more clearly benefit the poor. Monies spent to promote alternatives capture the collective imagination of the conservation set. Such a plan would set America headed in the right direction.
Unfortunately, such a plan would only be a down payment on the road to an effective tax. The tax itself is too small. Gas prices have gone up $1 in the last year with only a minimal effect on behavior. Furthermore, if it is not COLAed (increased with the cost of living) its impact would be gone in a two or three years.
Figuring out who is poor is hard enough but figuring out who has unusual driving needs is legislatively impossible.
At the present time there should be less money collected in the name of Social Security not more. That is a story for a different blog. As for subsidizing clean mass transit and supporting energy research this is the perfect grist for the “there go those tax and spend guys again.” (See also Why Not Use the Money to Support Alternative Energy) Finally, reducing the deficit is a noble goal but the total tax here is $100 billion dollars a year after all the above proposed spending what would be left could be taken up by a middling earmark.
If Mr. Friedman can capture the imagination of the American public I will be on the front lines supporting him. I hope that in the interim he develops an even stronger plan for America.
The following is a link to his website.
http://times.discovery.com/convergence/friedman/addictedtooil/addictedtooil.html
posted by Geoff Berg | 9:09 PM
1 Comments:
Delete duplication of "as for" in "As for as for subsidizing".
Post a Comment
<< Home