Senators consider gasoline tax as part of climate bill

[The Northerner]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Estimates put it in the range of 15 cents a gallon. Some oil companies are on board with the plan because it would cost them far less than other proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Reporting from Washington
Leading voices in the Senate are considering a new tax on gasoline as part of an effort to win Republican and oil industry support for the energy and climate bill now idling in Congress.

The tax, which according to early estimates would be in the range of 15 cents a gallon, was conceived with the input of several oil companies, including Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips, and is being championed by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It is shaping up as a critical but controversial piece in the efforts by Graham, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to write a climate bill that moderate Republicans could support. Along those lines, the bill will also include an expansion of offshore oil drilling and major new incentives for nuclear power plant construction.

Environmental groups have long advocated gasoline taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption; the oil industry has spent heavily in recent years to fight taxes, which it says would harm consumers.

In this case, though, several oil companies like the tax because it figures to cost them far less than other proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including provisions in the climate bill the House passed last year.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gas-tax14-2010apr14,0,5207349.story

[cutlassmama]

1. Does Exxon pay U.S. taxes??? Just sayin'

[FailureToCommunicate]

5. (Please don't bring that up today (April 15th) I was just starting to feel relieved.)

[saigon68]

33. a climate bill that moderate Republicans could support

LINDSAY FUCKING GRAHAM????

and JOEMENTUM ????

yikes what slobs

[DJ13]

2. That would impact the lower classes at the worst possible time

Despite the government's insistence the the recession is over, its still going full bore for everyone below the top 10% of incomes.

Are these people brain dead?

[customerserviceguy]

13. Exactly

If we do get any glimmer of a recovery, gasoline prices are going to rise, probably beyond that $4 a gallon level that we saw in mid-2008. This tax insures that Democratic legislators get the blame for it, Goober Graham or not.

[midnight armadillo]

24. 3.75% at $4

15 cents per gallon is a 3.75% tax. Prices can easily fluctuate that much over the course of a week or two in the peak driving season. If gas hits $5 the tax is 3% of the gallon.

It would be more fair to have a lower tax level for rural areas since driving distances for everything is much further and there are less public transit options, and a higher tax in urban areas where there are more options for train, bus, bicycles, etc.

[customerserviceguy]

25. I'm not talking about math

I'm talking about who gets the blame for it. Your comment assumes that people are going to be rational about it, I assume the opposite.

[truedelphi]

19. I have become so ashamed of the label

"environmentalist." This is a label I once wore proudly.

But I am watching in horror at how the poorest of the people in this nation will be expected to somehow make up for actions of the Big CorpoRATions and for the political decisions of people like Our President, who supports coal and nuclear power, while we have to pay more taxes for gasoline.

I try and stomach all the craziness - people being touted for living "green" in their 7,000 square foot houses.

Neighbors and friends of mine who consider themselves "Green" because they can afford a Prius, while at the same time they have rented their property out to grape growers - who immediately rip out all the oxygen-creating trees in order to replace them with the damn grapes. Vineyards is just a yuppie way of saying "deforestation." Once the vineyards are in, natural habitat is gone for a long long time, and the birds, skinks, skunks, possums, rabbits, deer, coyote and cougar had just better learn to live in the back yards of the tract home owners.

[karynnj]

26. There is discussion that some of the revenues raised will be

used to mitigate the impact on people. There are people I know who constrained their driving when the rates rose drastically a while ago. This usually meant doing as many errands as efficiently as possible in one trip. Now, there is a limit to what can be done - if live 20 miles from where you work.

What do you offer as an alternative as doing nothing is itself a choice that has bad consequences - that will again affect the most vulnerable more than the affluent. I would wait until the bill actually comes out to see what, if anything, they do to mitigate the impact.

[truedelphi]

37. Here is my alternative - tax every CorpoRATion that produces essentially

Big polluting non-essential items.

Monsanto - Tax 'em.
Let them pay for the years of Multiple sclerosis caused by their Formaldehyde containing product "RoundUp." **

Proctor and Gamble - Tax 'em!
Does anyone really need their endless supplies of benzene and formaldehyde marketed to us as "Air fresheners"?

Honeywell Big war time industry. Tax 'em.

Same with Raytheon, Halliburton, DynCorp, same with all the military contractors - tax 'em. Tax 'em ALL at 40% minimum.

**Monsanto lied through their sweet little fangs when they applied for their license to sell RoundUp over the counter. They told EPA that RoundUp was merely Glyphosate, PolyOxyethyeleneamine and Water.

When in reality, without an "aldehyde" of some sort in the mix,
glyphosate cannot be sprayed aerially.

Also, The Catholic Church and the Mormon church, and every other Church that has people preaching hatred against other human beings - Tax 'em. 40% minimum, with some of the funds to be used to offset the pain caused by pedophile priests.

[karynnj]

43. The companies will pass the tax on - so you end up in the same place.

As to taxing some or all churches, it is not going to happen.

[truedelphi]

47. That is my point, exactly karynj.

If the companies pass the tax pain on to their consumers, then maybe people will wise up that Febreeze, Lysol and Glade et al are not all that essential. If your home smells bad after someone uses the bathroom, why not light a match!
This worked for our grandparents for decades. Something stinks, light a match. And those grand parents lived to be in their eighties and nineties. Now every other person I know has cancer - and many of these people are only in their forties and fifties.

And now we have kids getting rare blastomas and brain cancers because of Lysol, Febreeze, Glade et al.

While these products are sold for pennies on the dollar of the cost of the risk that they expose our bodies to.

TAX THE RAT BASTARDS. Let them pass the costs on so their products' price reflects the damage done, and maybe people will wise up.

On edit: This tax policy worked with cigarettes.

[high density]

3. Graham is happy to vote for it so everybody else can say Democrats are voting to raise your taxes

It seems to me we need to get some real alternatives out there first before we try to ween people off of gasoline by taxing it more.

[Change Happens]

6. You ween people off of it by taxing it to the max, I favor this plan...

I hope it is a real high tax, a dollar or so per gallon, not just the $.15

[high density]

10. That's my point-- Ween them off it to _what_?

Not all of us have public transport systems to ride, in fact the people with that luxury are in the minority in this country. We need some feasible alternative fuels (something beyond this ethanol scam) to power cars. They aren't going away.

[truedelphi]

20. Hear! Hear! If this nation is so desperate for energy

That it needs to conserve, how about doing that on the backs of the military by ending the damn wars.

We either need to save the planet, or not bother. And nothing in the world is as wasteful as fighting non-winnable wars that are only being fought for profit.

[boppers]

22. The majority has legs.

They can walk, run, bicycle, etc.

Cars may not be going away, but there's less of a reason to use them to travel a mile or five.

With any hope, basic exercise should cut down on the obesity epidemic in the US, as well.

[TheCML]

32. And for those who don't live in walkable cities?

Or live 25 miles away from wherever they work? For example those who live in rural areas. As someone who grew up 18 miles from town, I would love to have been able to walk or ride my bike to work, but it just isn't always feasible. Face it, this tax would hurt the lower class, and those struggling to get by in rural or midsized cities the most. And it would be a complete disaster during the next election.

[boppers]

44. Gas has gone up 400% in my lifetime, so far.

I first lived in the mountains of Tucson, and bicycled the 5 miles to the nearest store. 18 miles would have taken a while longer, but for a while I was bicycling 25 miles at a time, so it was doable for an average human. As far as non-walkable cities, I don't think they get to be called a "city" if they aren't walkable, or lack public transit.

:evilgrin:

Seriously, did you have a specific city in mind? Or are you mostly thinking about rural folks, living far away from jobs/stores/etc.?

[TheCML]

48. im thinking of my family.

I grew up in the rural midwest. Im thinking of the ones who live in the country and those that own their own businesses that are already struggling. Ever try to pull a few hundred pounds of sheet rock along with tools with a bicycle? Ever try to bicycle 20 miles back home after working 10 hours in the sun as a steel worker? face it, this is a bad idea that only hurts the lower and working class. But hey if you want to feed right in to the republican hype machine that the Democratic party doesn't care about the working class, go right ahead and give them more fuel. How far this party has shifted into corporatism that we think of taxing the poor before actually making companies like Exxon pay their fair share.

[boppers]

51. Well, a big problem has been dividing rural folks into "non-working class".

Ranchers and Farmers don't have "bosses", or "corporate masters", and rarely get the same attention as Unions.

[DatManFromNawlins]

52. Some people never EVER learn

They huddle together in giant concrete jungles where 0% of their food supply is grown locally, and then thumb their noses at people who actually keep their dumb asses alive, as if they're part of a great unwashed peasant class.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Yes, Goober Graham

just got re-elected in 2008, he's safe until 2014. He is willing to lend 'bipartisanship' to whatever will drag our party down, whether it's a regressive gasoline tax, or amnesty for illegal aliens.

[karynnj]

27. Lindsey Graham is taking a very brave stand here and he has paid

a high price for it. Here is a link to a town hall he did, listen to the crowd. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/lindsey-graham-faces-tea_n_319225.html It is hate filled. It is true that he is not up until 2014, but that doesn't mean that he has not paid a price for this.

It is telling to me that are against dealing with climate change if it makes your gas cost 3.75% more and are against having an immigration policy that deals with families who have been here for decades, have American kids and homes and jobs.

[customerserviceguy]

39. He might have gotten yelled at

but he knows he'll always be re-elected. He had his pro-amnesty stance before the 2008 elections, and even though I never saw a SINGLE yard sign or bumper sticker for him in my trip to SC that year, he still won handily, in a year where Barack Obama brought legions of Democratic voters to the polls. He has to feel like he's pretty invincible at this point.

Slapping a regressive tax on gasoline at a time that fuel prices are bound to climb with inflation as the economy gets better is not the best way to deal with climate change, in my opinion. The tax is small enough not to be a deterrent to driving, yet it will surely get the blame when gas is $5 a gallon.

Also, as far as immigration reform is concerned, I'm in favor of the status quo, because as soon as we legalize everybody who sneaked in across the boarders, employers and farmers will just hire new sub-minimum wage border-jumpers, and the newly-legalized will just go on the welfare rolls. Why provide an incentive for more to come over here when we already have enough people willing to work in the shadows as it is?

[karynnj]

42. It is also not clear tht there will be a gas tax

The fact is that in many articles they are saying that the Senators are NOT leaking the details. You can't really argue that the tax is too small too be effective - but large enough to be burdensome. The point is that no matter what bill is written, if it is to have an effect on carbon emissions, it will change costs.

Nice that you are happy with keeping people in a disadvantaged condition permanently.

[Change Happens]

4. Please God, let it be much higher!

How about a dollar?

All the money should go to renewable energy, as in tax credits for wind and sun...etc.

[rucky]

9. What percentage of a minimum wage income would you like to see...

for a 20-minute commuter?

[truedelphi]

21. Not to mention that this means that EVERYTHING wil be priced higher.

Food and other necessities have to be transported, and this tax will make everything cost more.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. 20 minute commute = 10 miles

so 20 miles a day - say 2/3rds of a gallon. So this would be 10 cents a day. 0.1/(7.25*8) = 0.0017 , or 0.17%. If it were a dollar per gallon, it'd be 66 cents a day, or 1.1% of an 8 hour minimum wage job.

The latter is probably too high for a tax rise in one go. But if the tax were built up towards that, giving people notice for more efficient cars to be bought new, and for them to spread through the second-hand market, it might work.

How about 15 cents increase now, and another 5 cents every year after that, for the next 10 years?

[TheCML]

11. Im glad you're in a good spot financially.

But try telling the person who can barely afford to put 5-10 dollars worth of gas in their car after paying bills and buying groceries that you want a dollar a gallon gas tax. Some of us have had to scrape together change in order to get to work, and not all of us live somewhere with a viable public transit system. Also this tax would be disastrous in the next election.

[Mr. Sparkle]

7. If the oil companies are for it, my first instinct is that it is a bad idea.

But after thinking about it some more, i am convinced it is a bad idea. The people will pay, rather than the corporations who are making mega profits; and secondly, the Democrats will take all the flack for this tax, which is the last thing they should do coming up to an election. Lindsey Weasel face Graham knows full well what's he is doing, protecting the profits of the big corporations and putting all the blow back on the Democrats.

[Strelnikov_]

29. "protecting the profits of the big corporations and putting all the blow back on the Democrats"

That is the plan. And the Democrats will march right into it.

[Purveyor]

8. Oh yeah! That will win elections, indeed! /sarcasm eom

[cowman]

12. Geez

no wonder we have the tax and spend label. As if the midterms aren't bad enough, let's give the repukes more ammo to hammer us before the elections. What a bunch of dumbasses

[defendandprotect]

15. Tax those who control the natural resources -- ExxonMobil . . . not consumers . . .

but, if any of us had a real choice would we be driving gas guzzlers?

Gas today was I think over $2.70 gallon here in Central NJ!

[cowman]

16. What difference would that make?

Exxon-Mobile would just pass the cost on to the consumer. I drive a 2008 Ford Explorer, 6 cyl, gets about 21 mph. Luckily I'm in a position that I can afford the hike but what about the people who are living paycheck to paycheck? This is a recipe for disaster for the Dems if it passes.
I also own a 2009 Ford Expidition which is a gas guzzler but I need it to pull our boat to the lake

[defendandprotect]

18. What difference would a "Windfall Profit Tax" on oil industry make ... ?????

A considerable difference I would say --

and we could follow that up with NATIONALIZING the oil industry!

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Nationalizing the industry would only work if you then rationed gas

Remember, this is the climate change bill. The idea is to get people to use less gas. A tax on oil company profits won't decrease the amount of gas used. Neither would a nationalized oil industry.

If you nationalized the car manufacturers, on the other hand, you could direct them to produce more efficient cars.

[defendandprotect]

41. Electric cars - no gas rationing --

[Kittycat]

17. How about getting control of speculators before taxing us?

Because it's $3.09/gal right today in the FW Chi. Burbs for regular - and for what reason exactly?

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Demand?

IEA estimates 2010 demand of 86.6 million barrels a day. Fun fact: IEA also estimates global oil *supply* at 86.6 million barrels a day. No margins, no overhead at all between production and demand. Which means prices go up.

And Americans have been spoilt by unrealistically LOW fuel prices anyway. US$3.09 a gallon is cheap. I'm in the UK; at present rates of exchange one US gallon of 87-octane unleaded will set you back the equivalent of seven dollars American. And most of the rest of the world outside major oil-producing countries pays broadly similar at-the-pump prices.

[Lurks Often]

23. Idiots

Let's screw over the people who can least afford to be screwed over. They'll have to pay more for the gas to go to their job, more for the food and other necessary consumables of daily life, which will leave them less money to spend on everything else. This tax certainly won't help the economy recover.

Public Transportation, walking and other alternative methods of getting around isn't always a viable option for some people.

Full Disclosure: The effect of this on me personally will be minimal, I work from home full time, only drive the car once or twice a week and do all my errands at once and a full tank of gas will usually last me at several weeks to a month or even more sometimes.

[karynnj]

28. How do you propose to deal with climate change?

[Lurks Often]

40. Don't know,

but increasing the taxes on the people least able to afford them isn't it.

[LeFleur1]

49. Re: Idiots

"Let's screw over the people who can least afford to be screwed over."

Until the federal and state DOTs get on the ball and have a reliable, well scheduled, convenient transportation system in place that working people can use there should be no gas tax. I don't know how many times our state has voted for a train system but so far we have a piddle little one that runs about 30 miles south of the big city and some distance north. The system along the California coast is great. The one in Portland works well. I'm sure there are many more. Why can't such be built all over the country? When that is in place they can put a higher tax on gas. Instead they use our tax money to build more highway lanes so more people can buy cars and drive on them. People who make minimum wage have to get to work. Taxing their small incomes isn't the way.
Maybe our Senators and Representatives should be made to live on minimum wage for one year out of each five that they "serve". They haven't a clue.

[christx30]

50. I agree with the idea

of making them live on minimum wage. They are public servants. They should not be making $200,000+ a year. I'm thinking they should get $8.50 an hour for a honest 40 hour week. No more, no less. People that get re-elected can get up to $9 an hour, with a 50 cent raise after each election. More than enough lobbyists offering gifts and bribes for them to make their rent. They are, after all, put in place to serve us. Not to get rich or to be our masters.
I think politics should be miserable for politicians. No one but someone that honestly wanted to serve their constituents would do the job, and not people wanting to further their careers or to get rich.

And I agree on the gas tax. There are enough taxes on gasoline already. It's like 42 cents or more per gallon, depending on which state you live in.
We are taxed on just about everything that we do. I think they should lay off already and go after waste and corruption without mercy. That would save billions every year, and they wouldn't need new taxes.

[Ter]

34. No one who votes for this "poor tax" will be reelected

Regardless of party line, nor should they be.

[bamacrat]

35. Probably no the best thing to do now that the recession is ending.

How about tax the oil companies? But actually now that I think about it either way our gas will go up so... Maybe make a law that says prices cannot be artificially increased due to new taxes. ha like that would happen.

[beevul]

38. What a terrible idea.

Folks like myself and family who live very rural and MUST drive a four wheel drive at times of the year because roads are otherwise impassible, on top of making a lower rural wage, would be hit quite hard.



Hard enough that I'd vote against anyone who enabled such a thing.


Regardless of party affiliation.



Those of you who are for this...don't bother complaining when - should this pass - grain/corn related food prices go way up.

Think they wont?

I've never been a big fan of using taxation as a tool to modify peoples behavior either.

[wishlist]

45. Why is oil industry spending millions on TV ads opposing taxes on oil/gas?

I don't understand. This article says that several oil companies favor a gas tax after years of industry opposition. But I am still seeing constant TV ads sponsored by oil companies opposing taxes on oil and gas. I had been speculating that oil company ads were geared at stopping Congress from imposing windfall profits taxes on the oil companies who have been making obscene profits. But it doesn't make sense for them to be running these ads and also supporting the idea of consumer tax increase on gas, unless some of the companies just prefer consumer tax over oil company profits being taxed instead and running the ads make them seem like the good guys who are against consumer taxes.
I also don't see how this tax idea is going to bring Repub support since they are looking for any reason to attack Dems and WH and inflame the Teaparty crowd. The suggestion of increased taxes supported by Dems would give them a perfect excuse to go on the attack.

[crazylikafox]

46. Sounds like a poison pill to me.

Everyone will hate it. All PUBS will vote against it & use it to run against Dems in the fall. Why do we keep falling for this stuff.