In the Arena

For A Gas Tax

Charles Krauthammer has an absolutely compelling, and completely unexpected, argument for a gasoline tax in the Weekly Standard. He proposes a $1 per gallon tax that would be revenue neutral, 100% redistributed into payroll taxes and social security checks. This is not a new idea. (I wrote a column proposing a gas tax-payroll tax swap a few years ago; others came well before me.) And Krauthammer is, not surprisingly, more sympathetic to the national security arguments for higher gasoline prices than the environmental ones–Krauthammer remains unconvinced that global warming is man-made. But it is fascinating to see this proposal on the cover of Bill Kristol’s magazine. (And yes, one might argue ulterior motives–let a Democrat self-immolate by imposing a gas tax…one wonders where Krauthammer was on this issue the past eight years?)

Still, the simplicity of the thing is beautiful–especially when you compare to the mind-numbing complexity and scam-ability of a cap-and-trade program to limit carbon emissions. And it’s about time that workers got a payroll tax break, especially those urban sorts who “take the early bus,”  many of whom pay no income taxes. I harbor no illusions that Obama will spend political capital on a tax that would play into the hands of Rush and such, but let’s be honest: this is, without doubt, the most elegant way to lower carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Cliff

    I dunno, I’ve got some doubts.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Is this the first time that a republican understood that our system taxes labor rather than wealth? John Edwards had his flaws but he sure was right about hammering that point.

  • http://anagelikethis.blogspot.com/ mgale

    Rolling back a gas tax when gas prices go back up (that’s when, not if) is an easy thing to accomplish politically, and hands the right a tailor made issue to campaign on, along the lines of “Drill Baby Drill” and the demagogic ads Bush ran against Kerry in 2004 on the gas tax issue. Once payroll taxes are reduced, though, it’s proven almost impossible to raise them again. So the right is given two gifts: a political issue, and more leverage for “starving the beast,” because the net result of this plan will be a reduction in federal revenue as soon as the next hike in gas prices hit.

    However much theoretical sense this might make as policy, as politics, given the realities of what drives the Republican Party, it’s a loser for the Democrats.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I don’t disagree with your political concerns mgale but one wild card MAY be that we haven’t had presidential leadership in so long we (I) forget how important a President is in selling an idea.
    I’m not saying BHO is assured of having those skills but it is not unreasonable to hope that he does.

  • jimbobb

    This is not the first time he wrote in favor of a gas tax.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html

  • gduvall

    And Krauthammer is, not surprisingly, more sympathetic to the national security arguments for higher gasoline prices than the environmental ones–Krauthammer remains unconvinced that global warming is man-made.

    So we’ve already established that Krauthammer’s an ignoramus. Why should we listen to any of his arguments after that?

  • formerlyjames

    Bingo, gduvall!!!!! You got that right. The gas tax argument is interesting, may even have some redeeming benefit, but Krauthammer is the last person I would listen to about economic issues when he is a myopic ignoramus whose real motive is continued foreign policy stupidity.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    what martin gale and formerlyjames say. It may sound okay in theory but it would be suicide for Democrats.
    .
    Besides, krauthammer is a national security whacko of the neoconservative kind, so his newfound concern for reduced oil consumption as a national security issue is very suspect, to put it mildly. And as you say, he’s a global warming denier (does he REALLY have a legit MD? Hard to believe) so he’s not exactly a rational thinker either. And his concern for the poor, lowly working man is downright laughable.
    .

  • newfloridian

    If it’s Kraulthammer there is a scam to this somewhere. Since when has he ever cared about the middle class?

    Let me see….. We pay higher taxes for gasoline and then we get it back to us in reduced payroll taxes and higher social security benefits. Isn’t this a wash? Another feel good program that really doesn’t do anything but makes it appear the Republican’s care about the middle class? We take it from you with this hand and then give it back to you with the other hand and then call it a big tax reduction for the middle class.

    Of course it is enacted while gasoline prices are down around $1.50 a gallon, just to confuse the middle class even more. This plan has nothing really to do with carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil as we have already proven Americans will continue to buy gas at current levels until it’s about $3.50 a gallon. It’s all a propaganda ploy by Republicans to try to stay out front on the economy issue by promising a big tax break that of course is simply achieved by taking it from us somewhere else.

    Joe, why are you of all people fallilng for this shell game?

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    florida’s right. It’s a shell game. Let’s hope that Harry Reid & Co. aren’t naive enough to consider it.
    .

  • Paul-no not that one

    Is a stand alone gas tax a bad idea?

  • jose

    A gas tax is a great idea, although as someone mentioned earlier, if it goes back to 4 bucks maybe a little throttle back would be in order. The idea is to become energy independent and we are going broke so it’s a win win for me. If it’s done fairly early on in Barack’s term I don’t think the repubs will be able to use it as an issue.

  • Cliff

    Let’s hope that Harry Reid & Co. aren’t naive enough to consider it.
    .
    We’re doomed.

  • plukasiak

    I don’t see a gasoline tax of $1 having much in the way of an impact on people’s driving habits at this point, and as others have noted, the minute crude prices rebound the immediate reaction will be to demand a reduction in the gasoline tax.

    Rather than tax gasoline, have a tax based on the kind of mileage a vehicle gets combined with the number of miles driven. If you drive a lot in a very low mileage vehicle, you’re taxes should be massive; if you drive relatively little in a high mileage vehicle, the tax should be negligible. (and, of course, the tax would only be applied to those with sufficient wealth/income to pay it…)

  • cfukara

    Quiz: Who wrote the following compelling argument:
    “We must all be prepared to torture. Having established that, we can then begin to work together to codify rules of interrogation for the .. very unpleasant but very real cases in which we are morally permitted – indeed morally compelled – to do terrible things”
    Choose one of the following:
    1) Mother Teresa(World) on torture and extermination of humans.
    2) Adolf Hitler(Deutchland) on torture and extermination of humans.
    3) Pol Pot(Cambodia) on torture and extermination of humans.
    4) Charles Krauthammer( ) on torture and extermination of humans.

    JK:
    ” .. Charles Krauthammer has an absolutely compelling, and completely unexpected arguments .. “

    Who? Charles Krauthammer? Maybe – but on some topics, he rarely gets a ‘worthwhile’ idea – a “compelling argument” – that is not steeped in blood, hate and pious terrorism.
    About the quiz – the right answer is
    (d) – Charles Krauthammer in The Weekly Standard, Dec 5, 2005.

    [Would be of the same mentality if he was being tortured ... After all many, indeed MOST, of those at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Baghram concentration camps who were tortured - even unto death - were as innocent as Charles Krauthammer thinks he is. ..]

    But, I don’t doubt that he may have an argument deemed compelling by JK.

    ====

    Joe, we note that you haven’t blogged about the invasion and carnage in Gaza, yet. Or have you? Now, suppose that Israel had been invaded by Palestinians, a top leader killed and many more civilians killed in Israel than in Gaza, I bet that we would have read several “well reasoned” blogs from you – and probably seen pictures of bloodied kids, wailing mothers etc. Right?

    Somehow, some of us still hang onto that outdated notion about US reporters – American reporters of the ‘free and fair’ American media, the envy of the world ..

  • newfloridian

    Not to change the subject BUT…. I’m bummed.. The Grateful Dead are going back out on tour and nothing any closer to Florida that North Carolina. Not a big Deadhead, but like to see them before I die!

  • kathy

    I’ve wanted an increased gas tax for a long time, but for reasons others have mentioned I’m not excited about it being revenue neutral.
    .
    I’d prefer to see the money invested in even more ways to reduce carbon emissions – a credit perhaps on the purchase of high mpg cars to accentuate the advantage of using less gas, maybe some public transportation projects. And it’s undeniable that some people would suffer disproportionately because of the long distances people travel in some states.
    .
    I’d also prefer to see a dollar tax phased in at 20cents a year for 5 years, which gives people some time to anticipate what they need to do, and gives fewer reasons to bellyache about it.

  • wvng

    A gas tax has made policy sense for a long long time, well before Ross Perot suggested it, but with a nation where the RW can flood the media with every kind of horse$hit it is politically insane. Another one of those instances where we badly need to have a serious national discussion, like K-Tum wants for health care, but can’t because of the RW/noise machine-MSM nexus.
    .
    Perhaps in a few years Obama can lay the groundwork to make it possible.
    .
    I agree with kathy’s point about tax credits for purchase of high mpg cars. I would go so far as to also suggest increased taxes on notably low mpg vehicles. The two approaches in tandem.

  • kathy

    wvng – I like your last suggestion. very practical, and would make a difference – especially as hybrids are more expensive than comparable cars at the moment.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “tax credits for purchase of high mpg cars”
    .
    Already exists. We got a tax credit for our Prius. It is smart policy.

  • wvng

    kathy, I heard a while back that Honda is coming out with a hybrid Fit that will be quite reasonably priced – $18kish. And that Toyota will drop their Prius price to be competitive at the same time their mileage soars to 100 mpg, with the plug-in electric and solar panel additions.
    .
    With the new administration’s bent toward using facts to make decisions, and filling key posts with actual smart people who know stuff, the possibilities for real advances are thrilling.

  • wvng
  • Paul-no not that one

    The Prius isn’t cheap but the Yaris can be had for 12.

  • Paul-no not that one

    wvng-we haven’t done our taxes this year, I didn’t know that. Someone is going to be sad!

  • wvng

    PNNTO, we got a Yaris to replace my wife’s Toyota Echo (which went to the daughter). The Yaris is much less of a car – notably smaller, mileage disappoints (33-35 mpg) verus 42-45 for the Echo. Would have gotten a Prius but they had a many month waiting list at the time. Should have gotten another Honda Fit, which is a much more functional car with better mileage.

  • wvng

    Totally OT, but in case anyone wants to spend the evening watching one of the worst movies ever made (just for the sheer fun of it), pick up Druids. It is an epic, and an epic fail.

  • newfloridian

    Let’s not forget the little, high gas mileage, rolling coffins the Smart Cars. Has anyone come up with a photo of what happens to one once they meet a larger car. Don’t want to be there or in the Smart car in that case.

    Agsin Krauthammer or as I call him “Krackerjack” is just trying to scam the American middle class with another Republican shell game

  • formerlyjames

    Back to the original gas tax suggestion, I don’t see why it has to be revenue neutral. Taxas are necessary to raise revenue to provide what government is supposed to do. It’s like there can be no tax discussion without putting taxes down, bad, bad. It is lunacy. What people don’t like is taxation without representation, back to the original revolution. But tax discussion gets way off the purpose of it to begin with. The only point I make here is that tax is necessary. Never any discussion or consideration of that fact, only avoidance, reduction, credits, getting out of it.

  • steveinsacto

    Krauthammer’s idea is Teh Stupid on multiple levels:

    * The income effect is only neutral for people who happen to drive the average amount. Retake Econ 101 Dr. K and re-learn difference between micro and macro economics.

    * Not all gas consumers are people. What about businesses, particularly transportation and delivery related businesses. This $14 payroll tax rebate works how for them? He simply dismisses this as something “some small bureaucracy” (funded by what? This program is revenue neutral!) can resolve with extra rebates and/or credits. The Weekly Standard and Chuckles K are advocating for new bureaucracy. Could there be a clearer ‘tell’ that this is hokum?

    * It’s not revenue neutral because if you reduce consumption of gas you reduce tax revenue received from the currently existing gas tax structure.

    * Dr. Strangehammer surely sees this as a back door way to undermine Social Security funding. Note he’s quite specific about where the rebate funding should come from, while remaining entirely silent on where the new gas tax revenue should directed. Even if I’m wrong, do we really want to shift some of SSI/Medicare funding to be reliant on the gas tax? That’s not change I can believe in…

  • shepherdwong

    “I harbor no illusions that Obama will spend political capital on a tax that would play into the hands of Rush and such, but let’s be honest: this is, without doubt, the most elegant way to lower carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.”
    .
    So how ’bout a column on how rational and essential major policy prescriptions are rendered impossible by right-wing, “conservative” liars and propagandists, propped up and paid for by a handful of rich, maladjusted elites. Really, isn’t that the story of the last thirty years (at least).
    .
    Oh, I see, (rich) dog bites man. Never mind.

  • textee

    Joe Klein asserts: “Krauthammer remains unconvinced that global warming is man-made.”

    Wow. Next week Klein will inform us that “Krauthammer remains unconvinced that the tooth fairy exists.”

    The “global warming” hoax is the kind of comical, thoroughly discredited fraud that only the most stupid, naive fools would ever believe.

    Klein and Time magazine should go back to promoting the “global cooling”/”catastrophic ice age” hoax.

  • candree

    Hah. A gas tax is good and well for those who live in areas where public transportation is an option or a “choice.” I work in a rural area, and I have the shortest commute out of anyone I work with (40 minutes each way). At the height of the gas crisis this fall, I was devoting over 12% of my take-home income to gasoline to get to and from work.

    It’s also good and well for those who can afford it to upgrade their vehicles to fuel efficient hybrids. This is a select, elite few! We must face it: this is a scary situation. I graduated from an Ivy League school back in 2007 and have friends who have already been laid off from their first jobs, or who are STILL looking.

    The fuel tax is not a “progressive” tax. It hurts the working class, small business owners, and the working poor most of all. Even before all of this hit the fan, back in 2007 those making than $10,000 a year were spending 12 percent of their income on gasoline. Those earning more than $50,000 spent 4 percent.

    Small businesses would be decimated by this tax. Diesel has not gone back down as unleaded has and is still sitting at almost $3.00/gal. in some areas. It’s been interesting to see a large percentage of small businesses that rely upon trucking go under. At the height of this, my dad was spending over $1,000 a day to fill his truck for his small logging business. I guess we need to ask ourselves if we’d rather have income tax revenue from solvent businesses, or a gas tax. I know that this $1.00 gas tax would be the difference between life and death, solvency and defeat for many small business owners just like him. This is not the time or the place for this.

  • http://unconquerablegladness.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/gas-tax/ gas tax « unconquerable gladness

    [...] Jump to Comments im all for one. always have been. i suppose thats easy to say in a city with great public transportation. but im [...]

  • http://fuckyourepublicans.com/blog/?p=897 Win-Win | The F U Republiblog

    [...] proposes a gas tax, balanced by a payroll tax reduction. Joe Klein applauds: Krauthammer is, not surprisingly, more sympathetic to the national security arguments for higher [...]

  • http://samablog.robsama.com/?p=3835 this is the samaBlog » Blog Archive » Empowering Mobsters

    [...] article in the current Weekly Standard, this time getting picked up by Sully and I’m sure others, who are latching on to his idea. This is an idea that will empower mobsters and encourage [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus