Higher gas taxes would rob savings
The following is a Counterpoint:
By W. Carson Anderson
Once again, Thomas Friedman (column, Dec. 30) trumpets the tired slogan, “Americans are addicted to oil.”
I, for one, am not “addicted to oil.” What I am addicted to is transporting my family safely around town and getting to a job that allows me to afford food, clothes, health care and shelter.
I am addicted to having an ambulance transport my son to a hospital if he is sick or injured; addicted to having trucks deliver medicine and formula to the store for my daughter.
I am addicted to being able to travel by plane to visit far-off lands, or to reconnect with loved ones.
In short, I am addicted to the freedom and quality of life that cars, trucks and airplanes allow me to enjoy. I am guessing the rest of the world is striving for the very same thing.
Friedman, however, takes the amazing view that we actually need to increase the gasoline tax during this horrific economic period, essentially penalizing people for driving. His warped logic is, “As long as gas is cheap, people will go out and buy used SUVs.”
Setting aside for a moment the obvious ramifications on people’s wallets that a tax increase would have, Friedman should be reminded that “cheap gas” not only allows people to buy used SUVs, it allows for them to have more money for food, medicine, health care and savings. It allows for people to have more discretionary money to put back into our economy, which in turn reduces unemployment and poverty.
Friedman quotes Michael Mandelbaum as saying, “A gasoline tax would do more for American prosperity and strength than any other measure Obama could propose.” Exactly which Americans is he referring to, and what planet is the good professor on?
Wisely, President-elect Obama has given about as much thought to this idea as to naming Sarah Palin as his national security adviser. As Americans, we all want to move toward energy independence with clean-power technologies. However, demonizing people for driving larger (and safer) cars, and penalizing them for their pursuit of a quality lifestyle only sets back the arguments of Friedman and his ilk. We will have more fuel-efficient vehicles in the future and eventually will get to more alternative types of energy.
However, we don’t have to get there standing in a bread line.
The writer lives in Greensboro.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The problem with SUV's isn't their size, features or comfort. It's their horrible fuel economy--made worse by the Big Three's utter refusal to improve the quality of their products.
Which is it you want: freedom or quality of life? We can't have everything we want in bad economic times. Our commercial infrastructure has been needlessly wasteful for decades because gas was "cheap," and there didn't seem to be any need for efficiencies.
How much sense does it make for an American toymaker to send his product to China to be painted with lead paint, then shipped back to America for sale?
Why are we importing tomatoes from Brazil in winter? Are we really so demanding we have to have our treats, in season or not? Doesn't it make better economic sense to build an infrastructure that makes it cost effective for local farmers to offer local products locally?
The quality of life you describe has to be paid for. There is no free lunch. We pay for that quality of life in pollution costs: which raise healthcare costs, is devastating fisheries, and depleting us of much needed water. We pay in political costs by being held hostage by OPEC. We pay in blood by going to war in countries we have no business in to protect Big Oil's interests.
Reducing our need for oil will make us less vulnerable to dictator states who have the resources we so desperately need, but don't want to pay for what they're worth in cash--but will in blood.
Reducing our need for oil will make our air breathable. We can look up at the night sky and actually see the stars. It will allow us to look across the landscape and see clearly for miles. It used to be you could see Greensboro from the top of Pilot Mountain. Now the haze obscures it most of the time.
I guess it all depends on what you call quality of life.
Infrastructure has to be paid for. Highway enforcement has to be paid for.
If people drive less, then they look for entertainment closer to home. They live closer to where they work (I bought my house where I did specifically for the 5 minute commute).
The real benefit comes from reducing costs not eliminating them. If we don't reduce the costs of our oil addiction, then one day there won't be any gas to run our ambulances, to get to work, to go shopping. We'll be back to bikes and horse drawn carriages and a time where people rarely ventured more than 5 miles from where they were born.
A higher gas tax is worth it to me to be able to afford to keep driving.
Posted on January 4, 2009 11:33 AM
I couldn't agree more.The low gas prices are putting billions into the economy when it is desperately needed.Friedman doesn't seem to care about the economic suffering his gas tax would cause.I don't think anyone doubts that it won't be very long until gases prices go back up on their own anyway.We do need to wean off foreign oil but that should be done with natural economic forces.The government just screws things up when it tries to interfere as we have just seen with their interference in the housing market.
Posted on January 4, 2009 12:20 PM
"Which is it you want: freedom or quality of life?"
Can't have both? Freedom as in govt. slapping GPS units in our cars to track our movements and tax accordingly? Is that a good idea?
Is freedom having to stay within a five min. commute? If everything you need is within 5 min. why own a car? Just ride a bike, take the bus and rent a car for occasional trips like vacations.
"....made worse by the Big Three's utter refusal to improve the quality of their products."
Our current vehicles are produced Chrysler and Ford and all have been very reliable.
Posted on January 4, 2009 2:47 PM
Being in the UK this last week has shown me that there is no reason other than stubbornness that a pervasive rail and bus system would not work in most of urban and semi-urban America.
Staying in Cambridge for two days has most definitely shown me that everyday cycling is rather easy as well. There must have been more than 200 bikes parked outside the train station.
Posted on January 4, 2009 3:44 PM
Dan, I'd love nothing more to than to bike to work. I don't because I'd get hit by the idiots who have to shave 15 seconds on their commutes.
And you know I don't approve of the boneheaded GPS idea
And, hate to say it, but American cars stink. That's why the Big 3 is in so much trouble. Their sales were down way before the economy tanked. Toyota and Honda build much better cars, for far better value, and build most of them right here in the US.
While the Big 3's cars are better last year than many previous years, their record for reliability is still not great. (Check Consumerreports.org, they just had an article on this).
My Honda CR-V is 11 years old--bought the first year (normally I wouldn't) of the model because it drove so great. It's got 182,000 miles on it, still drives great, and gets decent fuel economy for its age (24mpg isn't bad for such an old car). I fill up my tank once every two weeks. I fully expect to get to 200,000 miles on it. I've driven it coast to coast as I've changed jobs. I drove it routinely through blizzards in North Dakota the 2 years I lived there. It was happy in the arid conditions of Northern California. And it likes the humidity of North Carolina just fine.
I had to drive a Chevy Cobalt for 4 weeks last summer when I was on a travel assignment in Houston. What an awful car. Uncomfortable, did not handle well, poor fuel economy. Was so happy to give it back to Hertz and get home to my Honda.
Posted on January 4, 2009 3:48 PM
Rahrah, I've lived in Europe and didn't have a car the whole time. I rode my bike and took the train to many places over the continent. The trains were clean, affordable and very reliable. Of course I was a single student at the time so it was easy, one bag and I'm off to wherever. I couldn't imagine doing the same with now two toddlers, diaper bags, strollers, toys, luggage, etc.
Europe is much more geographically compact than the US so public transportation is much easier. I lived in a town in France for a summer about the size of Reidsville. It had reliable and extensive bus transportation. While that is all well and good, it takes money, lots of money to have this transportation in small to medium sized communities. That is why gas is so expensive, $4.00/gallon at the time in 1984-85. That's why income taxes were so high.
The family I lived with still had two cars and they rarely used the bus.
We already have public transportation in urban areas and many semi-urban areas. Americans, including myself, however love their cars and the freedom they offer.
While I love many things about Europe, I don't want to become a European. This includes paying very high taxes and having govt. take care of my needs. Unfortunately too many of us here want this model and while never having lived under it.
Posted on January 4, 2009 4:40 PM
"I couldn't imagine doing the same..."
You couldn't imagine it, but people do it....
In no way do I think Europe is ideal, but we could certainly learn a few things.
"Americans, including myself, however love their cars and the freedom they offer."
Did I say something about stubbornness?
Posted on January 5, 2009 7:10 PM