Thomas J. Friedman, the Times' foreign affairs op-ed columnist, returned from book leave just in time last week. Right as he got the column cranking again, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain started pushing a federal gas tax holiday on the stump, Clinton even more so than McCain. Friedman, bless him, quickly tore it to shreds in this column, explaining it as the poor politicking and even poorer public policy that it is.
Here's the first paragraph, but you should read the whole thing: "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. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country."
Here's the first paragraph, but you should read the whole thing: "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. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country."
Eliminating the gasoline tax, even temporarily, only provides an incentive to keep using gasoline, which does nothing but increase the price. That seems simple and obvious, so why did Clinton push it so hard in Indiana and North Carolina for those states' primaries last week? It's always hard to attribute voting results to one specific thing, but perhaps her narrow win in the former and large loss in the latter, all but ending her campaign, happened because of her ill-suited and disingenous (the key word for Hillary Clinton's political life: disingenous) populist turn, of which the "gas tax holiday" was a part. Whereas much of the press forgot the Clintons are worth more than $100 million and pal around with economists and big-time Wall Street and hedge fund guys like these ones, it seems enough of the voting public remembered. (What's up with Rubin's head shot? And yes, I realize one can be quite wealthy and advocate for the middle class and poor -- isn't that what liberals do? -- but what Clinton has done on the campaign trail zooms past that principle and heads to infinite irrationality. Economists are "elitists"?)
Back to the gasoline tax: I was listening to Terri Gross interview Al Gore on "Fresh Air" last week, in what was probably the most interesting and sensible one I heard in awhile. Essentially, his argument was our country's taxation policy should be shifted from the income tax to a pollution/carbon/higher gas tax so U.S. businesses' burden for labor costs is somewhat alleviated compared to that for the developing economies of China and India, while discouraging people from partaking in polluting activities, by which I assume he means on the most basic, daily level: driving. A quote from Mr. Gore (I held my tape recorder up to a car speaker while driving): "We ought to pay for them [our country's social services] with pollution taxes instead and in the course of that give an incentive to the reduction of CO2 that assists people to the adjustment of a low-carbon, no-carbon economy that will make us much more competitive in the future..."
(Gore also scored tons of points with me for citing TV and its 30-second ad spots and superficial, poorly produced news programs as one reason why we now live in an age ill-suited to reason with an ill-informed population at-large. I couldn't agree more. Why is it my favorite politicians refuse to run for president?)
Back to the gasoline tax: What the short-term solution to our country's high gasoline prices is I don't know. Would any readers here suggest rolling back the tax might actually help since a penny saved is a penny saved and there isn't anything else on the horizon? Or might we all have to just gradually drive less, along with several other massive changes to the U.S. economy and culture? I realize my commuting does not aid anything.
Back to Friedman: One of my friends said he likes Friedman a lot because he thinks Friedman would be a wonderful dinner/drink companion -- engaging, thoughtful conversation -- compared to everyone else on the Times' op-ed page. I agree. I also like him because, unlike the rest of the page, he's non-partisan. He'll take the best answer out there, no matter where it comes from. (Politicians say this all the time; none of them mean it.) He even knocked it out of the park with his Mother's Day column today. I think this brand of column is often cloying and unoriginal, but he hits it.
Happy Mother's Day, mom and bubby!
Back to the gasoline tax: I was listening to Terri Gross interview Al Gore on "Fresh Air" last week, in what was probably the most interesting and sensible one I heard in awhile. Essentially, his argument was our country's taxation policy should be shifted from the income tax to a pollution/carbon/higher gas tax so U.S. businesses' burden for labor costs is somewhat alleviated compared to that for the developing economies of China and India, while discouraging people from partaking in polluting activities, by which I assume he means on the most basic, daily level: driving. A quote from Mr. Gore (I held my tape recorder up to a car speaker while driving): "We ought to pay for them [our country's social services] with pollution taxes instead and in the course of that give an incentive to the reduction of CO2 that assists people to the adjustment of a low-carbon, no-carbon economy that will make us much more competitive in the future..."
(Gore also scored tons of points with me for citing TV and its 30-second ad spots and superficial, poorly produced news programs as one reason why we now live in an age ill-suited to reason with an ill-informed population at-large. I couldn't agree more. Why is it my favorite politicians refuse to run for president?)
Back to the gasoline tax: What the short-term solution to our country's high gasoline prices is I don't know. Would any readers here suggest rolling back the tax might actually help since a penny saved is a penny saved and there isn't anything else on the horizon? Or might we all have to just gradually drive less, along with several other massive changes to the U.S. economy and culture? I realize my commuting does not aid anything.
Back to Friedman: One of my friends said he likes Friedman a lot because he thinks Friedman would be a wonderful dinner/drink companion -- engaging, thoughtful conversation -- compared to everyone else on the Times' op-ed page. I agree. I also like him because, unlike the rest of the page, he's non-partisan. He'll take the best answer out there, no matter where it comes from. (Politicians say this all the time; none of them mean it.) He even knocked it out of the park with his Mother's Day column today. I think this brand of column is often cloying and unoriginal, but he hits it.
Happy Mother's Day, mom and bubby!
No comments:
Post a Comment