Real Men Tax Gas

[dtotire]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

Real Men Tax Gas

*

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 19, 2009

Do we owe the French and other Europeans a second look when it comes to their willingness to exercise power in today’s world? Was it really fair for some to call the French and other Europeans “cheese-eating surrender monkeys?” Is it time to restore the French in “French fries” at the Congressional dining room, and stop calling them “Freedom Fries?” Why do I ask these profound questions?

Because we are once again having one of those big troop debates: Do we send more forces to Afghanistan, and are we ready to do what it takes to “win” there? This argument will be framed in many ways, but you can set your watch on these chest-thumpers: “toughness,” “grit,” “fortitude,” “willingness to do whatever it takes to realize big stakes” — all the qualities we tend to see in ourselves, with some justification, but not in Europeans.

But are we really that tough? If the metric is a willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and consider the use of force against Iran, the answer is yes. And we should be eternally grateful to the Americans willing to go off and fight those fights. But in another way — when it comes to doing things that would actually weaken the people we are sending our boys and girls to fight — we are total wimps. We are, in fact, the wimps of the world. We are, in fact, so wimpy our politicians are afraid to even talk about how wimpy we are.


How so? France today generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and it has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics. And us? We get about 20 percent and have not been able or willing to build one new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, even though that accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or neighbors. We’re too afraid to store nuclear waste deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain — totally safe — at a time when French mayors clamor to have reactors in their towns to create jobs. In short, the French stayed the course on clean nuclear power, despite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and we ran for cover.
How about Denmark? Little Denmark, sweet, never-hurt-a-fly Denmark, was hit hard by the 1973 Arab oil embargo. In 1973, Denmark got all its oil from the Middle East. Today? Zero. Why? Because Denmark got tough. It imposed on itself a carbon tax, a roughly $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, made massive investments in energy efficiency and in systems to generate energy from waste, along with a discovery of North Sea oil (about 40 percent of its needs).

(snip)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20friedman.html?ref=opinion

[hlthe2b]

1. If we had sufficient mass transit alternatives, I'd say tax the hell

out of gas. Given we do not and that this is yet another area the US has failed to address, I could not condone the horrible effect on the working poor if gas becomes out of their reach to purchase through taxes or greedy speculation. I hope that we on the left keep the impacts in mind to the most vulnerable among us. Clearly none on the "right" will do so.

[sabbat hunter]

2. I am not usually

a fan of Thomas Friedman, but I give him a big thumbs up here.

[imdjh]

3. Prices aren't low and even if they were that doesn't mean a tax is a good idea.

So here's my idea: put a 50% asset tax on guys in Bethesda who are worth $20million or more. It's a tax that hurts the fewest people, and virtually no one who really needs a vehicle to make a living and take care of daily life.

Real men tax writers.

[tularetom]

4. Someone has kidnapped Thomas Friedman and wrote a column in his name

because I actually agree with about 90% of what's in that one.

The part I don't agree with ha to do with what he proposes to do with the revenue from the $1 per gallon tax on gas. If we don't start paying attention to the infrastructure in this country we can forget ever getting our economy back on a competitive basis with the rest of the world. If we're going to bite the bullet hard enough to impose such a steep gas tax part of needs to go toward fixing our nation's transportation system.

[Hugin]

5. Yup, yet another incredibly regressive tax is all we need right now...

Typical anti-middle class pablum from the heir to Supply-side magical thinking. (Well, there's another three minutes of my life I'll never get back. :eyes: )

[iamjoy]

6. Agree With Principle, Not How Spent

More of such a tax should be spent on infrastructure and public transit. How much gas do drivers waste each year because of non-synchronized traffic signals? But it costs money to get the lights in sync. That's just one example of how improved infrastructure would help us use less gas. Next, the working poor. They are more likely to rely on public transportation. IF gas is more expensive, municipalities are going to either cut back on routes or raise prices.

We should pay for health care by taxing the axis of food evil - "bad" fats (saturated, trans), sodium and added sugars (ie: high fructose corn syrup).

[ovidsen]

7. Where should new gas tax $ go? Public transit.

I agree with much of what Friedman says. The US should have multiplied the gasoline tax a LOOONNG time ago.

But I also side with those here who warn that a massive motor fuel tax will be a regressive tax against those who can afford it the least. The working poor who live in places where public transit is non existent, and if you don't have a car, you're ddead.

Sure, spend some of the new revenue on debt service and health care. But reserving just 10% of this windfall on mass transit (as Friedman suggests) is about the same as spending nothing at all on individual vehicle alternatives.

I know. Easier said than done. Here in Atlanta, the MARTA rail system is widely regarded as a quick and easy way for thugs to invade "our" neighborhoods, commit crimes, and vanish. MARTA remains the only urban rail system in the nation that doesn't get so much as a penny from state government agencies.

Sigh.

[AusDem]

8. Huge rec for this article

another perfect reason would be to reduce the funds flowing to extremist groups.

lets face the facts, extremist groups die without funding. They don't add anything to the economy, they don't make anyone's life better, and they certainly don't grow or produce anything. A large amount of funding for wahabbi groups has been from rich saudi "princes" and the like, who have basically got that money from many sources, but primarily from the US.

Yes these groups have other sources of funding (ie, islamic "charities"), but if the oil money dries up, many, many things will have to change in the islamic world.

[Zoeisright]

9. France has nuclear without 'any' problems? Hardly.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2008/gb20080728_585698.htm

And, France is NOT dealing with the nuclear waste. It's just shipping it to Russia.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

In the above article, they claim that depleted uranium doesn't pose a health issue.

Tell that to the Iraq war vets and people living in Iraq.

French Nuclear Workers Say Conditions Worsen:

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/french-nuclear-workers-say-conditions-worsen-2959101

And, from Greenpeace:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear/french-nuclear-success/france-s-nuclear-failures

[Demeter]

10. France Dumps Nuke Waste off Somalia Coast

Hence the pirates--fishermen deprived of their livelihood by foreign dumping of toxic waste.