Dear Mr. Obama, No "Gas tax holiday" - Increase the tax and use the money wisely
Everyone agrees that there's a problem, but the solutions being proposed by our political leaders don't make any sense to an average guy like me.
President Bush wants to tear up the countryside drilling for more oil, but all the easy (inexpensive) oil has already been found so whatever comes up next will certainly be expensive. And even if he brings in a gusher the refineries are running at capacity and nobody wants to build a new one in their own backyard.
Senators McCain and Clinton want to grant everyone a "gas tax holiday." That has to be the most illogical idea to come out of Washington in years. In the April 30 issue of the New York Times Thomas Friedman says "It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away." Besides the fact that lowering prices usually leads to increased demand (how can we possibly consume our way out of this problem?) those federal taxes go toward desperately needed highway and bridge construction projects. Hundreds of economists have signed a letter in opposition to this idea.
The rest of Congress wants to subsidize more corn for ethanol production; helping to disrupt global food supplies in the process, without addressing either the energy or environmental problems. The Wall Street Journal on May 7, 2008 had an editorial saying in part "The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption. In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough 'renewable fuel' to meet federal mandates."
The Obama '08 Web site has a plan to "Make America a Global Energy Leader." But that achievement is put out into the future by 20 or more years. Making demands, wishful thinking, or even passing laws that "Require 25 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2025" won't make it happen. That document sounds like it was written for the Obama campaign by someone that's been in Washington for way too long.
Are we as a nation willing to admit that those are the best ideas we can come up with? Have we just decided to wait and let Japan, India, or Israel come up with solutions?
First let's look at how much money we could raise. The USA consumes about 9 million barrels of gas each day. That's about 388 million gallons. A new 20 cent/gallon Energy Investment Surcharge could raise about $78 million per day, or almost $30 billion/year. Not enough? Then double it, or triple it. I would be happy to pay the extra IF the investment seemed worthwhile.
Now, what would I do with that money? I don't know exactly, but I wouldn't let anyone in Washington touch it. The last thing we need is Congress, in its infinite wisdom, picking the "best" energy investments for the country. What I suggest is dividing that money up evenly and giving each of the 50 states an equal share. I would feel comfortable empowering 50 governors to invest that money for me. They won't all hit home runs, but even a few would be a huge win for the country, and the planet. Pennsylvania and other coal producing states might want to fund clean coal research. Michigan might invest in GM's electric car project. California might invest in the Bay Area biofuels startup company called Amyris, or the electric car company Tesla Motors. Other states might pool their resources to collaborate on really big projects. The guarantee of receiving that funding for, say 10 years, would allow the states to multiply the federal funds many times over through other public and private investments.
That is the kind of thing I want to hear our next president talking about. Something that really fires up the imagination, not just vague talk of "change."
Are we as a nation willing to admit that those are the best ideas we can come up with? Have we just decided to wait and let Japan, India, or Israel come up with solutions?
I certainly don't want to give up, so here's my idea for Senator Obama to change the course of the debate, and get a lot of people involved in talking about actual solutions. Raise the federal gas tax and use every cent of that increase to solve the nation's energy problem.
First let's look at how much money we could raise. The USA consumes about 9 million barrels of gas each day. That's about 388 million gallons. A new 20 cent/gallon Energy Investment Surcharge could raise about $78 million per day, or almost $30 billion/year. Not enough? Then double it, or triple it. I would be happy to pay the extra IF the investment seemed worthwhile.
Now, what would I do with that money? I don't know exactly, but I wouldn't let anyone in Washington touch it. The last thing we need is Congress, in its infinite wisdom, picking the "best" energy investments for the country. What I suggest is dividing that money up evenly and giving each of the 50 states an equal share. I would feel comfortable empowering 50 governors to invest that money for me. They won't all hit home runs, but even a few would be a huge win for the country, and the planet. Pennsylvania and other coal producing states might want to fund clean coal research. Michigan might invest in GM's electric car project. California might invest in the Bay Area biofuels startup company called Amyris, or the electric car company Tesla Motors. Other states might pool their resources to collaborate on really big projects. The guarantee of receiving that funding for, say 10 years, would allow the states to multiply the federal funds many times over through other public and private investments.
- Imagine the enthusiasm generated by the (friendly) competition between states as thousands of entrepreneurs join this historic battle.
- Imagine the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created.
- Imagine the new industries that would rise up from this research.
- Imagine the positive impact on the environment if the resulting technology (developed at taxpayer expense) was open sourced, like software, so that China and India could benefit from new, clean energy sources.
- Imagine the US really being put on a track to become a global energy leader.
That is the kind of thing I want to hear our next president talking about. Something that really fires up the imagination, not just vague talk of "change."
I like the idea of distributing money to the states, but unfortunately, the folks in Congress would probably spend more time arguing about how to split it up than the recipients will take to solve the problem. I would also like to see something along the lines of the X Prize on a much larger scale.
Reply to this
First, you should get your facts straight before you write something. You content that all the easy oil has already been gotten, yet you do not define easy oil. So what if oil is more expensive to get. It still provides energy that allows us to go where we want to go when we want to go. But then again, socialists never did like freedom of movement, now did they? Second, you say that the countryside will be torn up. I highly doubt the countryside will be torn up. Last time I checked, I haven't seen any torn up countryside where there are oil derricks. It's always located in a small area compared to the whole, but then again, socialists love catchy phrases, not the truth. The truth is that socialism can only win if the people believe in the big lies that they tell. Business is not the enemy. Government is the enemy. So please do us all a favor and start thinking instead of parroting the socialist party line. The countryside will not be torn up. There is still plenty of cheap energy out there, at least compared to the alternatives. Heck, most of the ocean has never been explored and areas that have already produced oil can be looked over once again by newer technology to see if there is more oil. But then again, it really isn't about the truth, now is it. It is just about the socialists wanting to control the lives of everyone and you my friend are nothing more than a pawn in their game. You parrot their words without thinking about what you are saying. You use cliches that mean nothing. Think my friend. Think.
Reply to this
How about having large tax incentives for the surplus housing? Free up the wealth of the rich rather than tax them so they hide it. Give tax credits focused on donations to areas of the economy you want funded. Let people decide where they put their money..
Reply to this