No, an Obama presidency will not be all sunshine and roses.
One of the biggest legislative likelihoods will likely be an enactment of a substantial increase in the Federal gasoline tax.
Never mind that millions of stalwart middle-class citizens reside on the edges of the outskirts, as we view the results of 70+ years of aggressive urban sprawl, accelerated
by the development of the Interstate Highway System.
And, as we quote a editorial in Tuesday's NYT:
"Expensive gasoline is not good news for most American families. In some rural areas where people must drive long distances, and a pickup is more of a necessity than a lifestyle
choice, filling up the tank can eat up nearly 15% of a worker's take-home income. Pricey
gasoline is acting as a brake on the economy and pushing up the price of food and other goods."
No kidding . . . not to mention that gasoline taxes are among the most regressive of tariffs, as they effectively hold a gun at the heads of people who must drive to their jobs and to best manage their children/personal affairs.
So, you want to make gas even MORE expensive?
Suuuure, if you're a limousine lib like those who live within major cities, where car ownership is realistically not a requirement, and think it's a simple decision to bump gas taxes substantially in order to conserve, and to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil supplies.
It's a simple decision, all right -- but not in the way they think. Simpleminded, yes.
Here's the Times' concluding leap of "logic":
"Still, Americans' response to rising gasoline prices makes in excellent case for a gas tax.
It proves that drivers will change their behavior in response to high fuel prices."
Sweet Jesus Christ. This is muddleheaded liberal social-engineering twaddle at its absolute worst, direct from the folks who editoralized against people being allowed to bring suitcases onto aircraft to store in the overheads.
Millions of people in this country don't HAVE a choice about their broad driving habits, given the aforementioned urban sprawl so beloved by the automotive industry, the oil
industry, and the auto-supply operations. Is everybody suddenly supposed to be able to work at home and/or in some kind of self-employed role? Is everybody supposed to move into major metro areas, at the snap of someone's fingers?
Braindamage.
So Congress is rubbing its hands together, eager to shake down victims of urbran sprawl -- already punished severely by the recent real-estate downturn -- for (badly-needed) tax revenue, in the name of some measure of eventual conservation.
Detroit already gets the picture about people wanting more fuel-efficient cars. Recent
sales figures on gas-guzzlers are abysmal. The marketplace effects have not been subtle.
But Detroit can't turn on a dime. And in the interim, the middle and lower classes get further abused between Mr. Rock and Mr. Hard Place, while the Treasury sucks up billions in NON-excess cash with a wholly-arbitrary tax increase no one wants except the eggheads.
Gag me.
One of the biggest legislative likelihoods will likely be an enactment of a substantial increase in the Federal gasoline tax.
Never mind that millions of stalwart middle-class citizens reside on the edges of the outskirts, as we view the results of 70+ years of aggressive urban sprawl, accelerated
by the development of the Interstate Highway System.
And, as we quote a editorial in Tuesday's NYT:
"Expensive gasoline is not good news for most American families. In some rural areas where people must drive long distances, and a pickup is more of a necessity than a lifestyle
choice, filling up the tank can eat up nearly 15% of a worker's take-home income. Pricey
gasoline is acting as a brake on the economy and pushing up the price of food and other goods."
No kidding . . . not to mention that gasoline taxes are among the most regressive of tariffs, as they effectively hold a gun at the heads of people who must drive to their jobs and to best manage their children/personal affairs.
So, you want to make gas even MORE expensive?
Suuuure, if you're a limousine lib like those who live within major cities, where car ownership is realistically not a requirement, and think it's a simple decision to bump gas taxes substantially in order to conserve, and to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil supplies.
It's a simple decision, all right -- but not in the way they think. Simpleminded, yes.
Here's the Times' concluding leap of "logic":
"Still, Americans' response to rising gasoline prices makes in excellent case for a gas tax.
It proves that drivers will change their behavior in response to high fuel prices."
Sweet Jesus Christ. This is muddleheaded liberal social-engineering twaddle at its absolute worst, direct from the folks who editoralized against people being allowed to bring suitcases onto aircraft to store in the overheads.
Millions of people in this country don't HAVE a choice about their broad driving habits, given the aforementioned urban sprawl so beloved by the automotive industry, the oil
industry, and the auto-supply operations. Is everybody suddenly supposed to be able to work at home and/or in some kind of self-employed role? Is everybody supposed to move into major metro areas, at the snap of someone's fingers?
Braindamage.
So Congress is rubbing its hands together, eager to shake down victims of urbran sprawl -- already punished severely by the recent real-estate downturn -- for (badly-needed) tax revenue, in the name of some measure of eventual conservation.
Detroit already gets the picture about people wanting more fuel-efficient cars. Recent
sales figures on gas-guzzlers are abysmal. The marketplace effects have not been subtle.
But Detroit can't turn on a dime. And in the interim, the middle and lower classes get further abused between Mr. Rock and Mr. Hard Place, while the Treasury sucks up billions in NON-excess cash with a wholly-arbitrary tax increase no one wants except the eggheads.
Gag me.
