Decision '08 and the Gas Tax
(photo by Lee Bey)
The three presidential candidates are still pussyfooting around the energy issue. Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain want to suspend the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal fuel tax; Clinton thinks the oil companies should pay the tax, rather than consumers (She does know the oil companies will only raise the price of gas to pay for the tax? Doesn't she?)
Sen. Barack Obama considers the proposal a joke (although when he was a state senator, he backed a move eight years ago to suspend Illinois' gas tax.) But Obama offers nothing really concrete as a counterproposal. This should be THE issue for a candidate like him, being for change and all. But his response so far as been the typical recital of "alternative energy, bio-fuel, renewable energy" buzzwords, with nothing concrete anchoring them.
If we had three candidates this soft on terrorism, this country would call for their hides.
Let me just say this: getting rid of the federal gas tax is foolish. The tax raises about $30 billion a year, with most of it going to highway maintenance and construction but 15 percent of the amount goes to urban mass transit. So taking those dollars away only to allow people to drive more...that seems a touch loony.
Yet, what candidate will have the barrels, if you will, to tell America the truth. I wish a candidate would give an address and just spell it out...
My fellow Americans. We face the biggest threat yet to our liberty and freedom. The threat I speak of now does not come from Al Queda, or the insurgency in the Middle East, or some foreign invader yet-to-be. My friends, the danger is from within.
After the fuel crisis of the 1970s ended, this country began again treating cheap oil as our birthright. And for 35 years when we should have made our cars significantly more fuel efficient, in the name of cheap oil, we refused.
When we should have invested trillions more in mass transit and freight rail while demanding a true national passenger rail system, in the name of cheap oil, we refused.
And when we should have created disincentives to building sprawled out, car-dependent suburbs, we refused. And now, even as fuel prices cause the cost of food to rise, I remind you that much of suburbia rests on close-in land where food was once grown. We could have protected that land, but we refused.
But now..we must dig ourselves out of this hole, or risk being buried in it. To do so will take more than a speech and the promise of commitment. It will mean a radical re-thinking of where and how we live, work and play as Americans. We are not talking about a lesser America, but one in which we can still enjoy or freedoms without putting ourselves in financial bondage and ultimate ruin.
This mighty country spent the modern-day equivalent of $5 trillion over four years to fight in World War II. The enemy we now face is no less a menace than the one we faced them. We are now spending $12 billion a month to wage war in the Middle East. The enemy we face now is no less a threat than the once we face there.
At this point, the candidate would announce his or her plan. I have a few ideas, but sheesh, I gave them the speech, do I have to give them the idea, too?
Comments
Perhaps another black guy from the south side should have run for Prez? Lee Bey for President!
I do have some questions and comments though.
First, is your Pastor looney and if so are their videos out there to prove it?
Second, can the photos of you with wigs. Only Rudy Giuliani can get away with running in drag.
Third, can the photos on your site of all the lovely ladies. If you are too open about your appreciation of women you will be vilified in many different ways. Better to act like a conservative while praising openness and generosity. Then when your GOP opponent gets caught with a "wide stance" or a half dozen hookers you can offer your prayers for his family.
Fourth, remind rural folks that public transportation benefits them by keeping gas prices lower and urban and suburban folks away from them.
Fifth, don't appoint me campaign manager. My scandals would be ongoing and amusingly destructive. Two thoughts: alcohol and NCAA cheerleaders.
Posted by: IrishPirate![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://leebey.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2008 04:11 PM
You'd never get elected dog catcher. But I still might vote for you.
BTW, I burn a lot less gas since I moved to the ex-urbs. I think the reason is because when I'm in the car I'm moving and not stuck in traffic.
More miles, less gas. Hmmm.
But, indeed, we are car dependent. There are a lot of grays about sprawl, it's not all black and white. And if there was some nature and less cars in the city, I might have stayed.
Did you know that in toto, houses contribute quite a bit more to green house gases and consume substantially more energy that autos?
Also BTW, we bought a house in the 'burbs that would probably have been torn down and put into a landfill. I would never build on open land! People that live out here want to preserve open land more than you do. Most of the developers (and their lawyers) are not from these parts. Many of their offices are downtown in the big city.
Now you've got me sounding very defensive! You've got a lot of "barrels"!
Posted by: marty hackl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://leebey.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2008 05:11 PM
you got my vote.
Posted by: primo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://leebey.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2008 05:34 PM
Thanks for the comments!
Hi Marty: I agree that houses and buildings are bigger offenders than cars. But I figured cars were the easy mark because in 20 years, most of the cars we now see will be gone anyway and thus many can be replaced by far more fuel efficient cars or better mass transit. We're stuck with our housing stock for probably 50 years or more, so change will come slowly...
regarding suburbia...I dont want to appear like I'm knocking it. If much of it were truly the Walden as they were envisioned (or a place like yours) it would be okay. But many are so disconnected and sprawled with no bus no in town train..you're in the car for everything..and still jam the Kennedy from O'Hare to Chicago every morning to get to work.
Irish: Lee Bey for President? As our great president Lyndon Baines Johnson-Marx once said, "I not seek, nor will I accept, the presidency of any country that would have me as president."
Posted by: urbanobserver![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://leebey.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2008 06:53 PM
It's not quite so simple as "buildings are worse than cars." The average American family uses more energy to get between buildings than it does within buildings -- and while we already have many "clean" electricity options (coal power plants being the single largest carbon emitter), we don't have many alternatives to gasoline. Cars and road infrastructure are also the leading source of toxic air and water pollution in most cities (including Chicago), and car crashes are among the leading causes of death and injury in America.
On average, suburbanites drive 100 more hours a year than city residents. That has financial and social costs, not just environmental costs.
I wish that there were fewer cars in the city, too. However, I'm at least doing my part by not having one!
Posted by: paytonc![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://leebey.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 8, 2008 02:28 PM