thoughtcrumbs

It's true removing the gas tax isn't going to 'fix' a socioeconomic system that revolves around limited resources and global exploitation, just like rebates aren't going to 'fix' the economy (but they all voted for that). But it's pretty hard to argue that shifting the tax burden from consumers to oil companies is a bad thing. Gas demand is fairly inelastic, 20 cents a gallon isn't going to make a dent in consumption or demand. It will, however, serve to level out the spike in price due to the switch over from winter blends to more expensive summer gasoline. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, is a matter of where you stand on how important general economic health is.

But there's one problem with the Obama argument: what's he offering instead? vague xenophobia (and it's friedman, not obama who's saying that)? He's notably silent recently on what he's actually going to do. He actually proposed legislation for and supports subsidizing coal gasification of all things - which would not only be 2-3 times worse in terms of carbon load but has the side benefit of pleasing his big coal financiers in Illinois. Granted the environmentalists jumped down his throat for it (rightfully) and he's since backed off from promoting it, but is that really the best idea he has?

If we were actually a nation with a backbone, we'd slap on a $3 per gallon tax on gas like most of europe does and drive less. But seeing as we've developed our national infrastructure directly counter that line of thinking, it would be political suicide to do just that. Instead we get candidates endorsing ethanol (strangely McCain's the only one with the right idea there) and offering vague ideas about some ideal world where we're no longer dependant on oil.

I'll be impressed when a candidate puts together a comprehensive energy/transportation policy plan that emphasizes nuclear (fusion and fission) and renewables combined with mass transit and electrification of personal transit. Till then, I'm not buying anyone's slanted opinions.