Lula: Liberal Solution to Gas Prices - Raise Taxes!
Karolina Lula, Op-Ed Columnist
Issue date: 10/31/05 Section: Opinion
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has made the government and its critics question oil policy. Leave it to The New York Times to come up with a solution.
The paper ran an editorial this week arguing for higher taxes on gasoline because gas is to blame for the nation's problems with terrorism, the environment, and the economy.
Federal and state taxes are responsible for around 27 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline. Federal excise taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon, while state taxes average to 21 cents per gallon. This does not include additional sales taxes imposed by some states, counties and cities.
The Times editorial argues that the increase in taxes, most of which will be borne by the consumer, will decrease the demand for gasoline. This in turn, the writers believe, will force companies to search for more fuel-efficient environment-friendly solutions. What the writer does not take into account is that the demand for gasoline is inelastic, which means that regardless of the price, consumers will purchase the same amount. They do admit that gas taxes are "painfully regressive."
In addition, the gas tax would not significantly improve our environment. The Times editorial would like to nurture certain myths that help them advocate enormous government spending.
The oil-guzzling SUVs of the conservatives are to blame for Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, maybe even an earthquake in Pakistan. When we tinker with nature she gets angry.
The liberals know that the conservatives are to blame because their devil-may-care attitude toward the environment has caused natural disasters.
One cannot measure the depths of the heart of a liberal. Liberals are so compassionate that even though the Red States brought these disasters upon themselves, they cry that the government's spending is still not enough. And then they wonder why the Red States, with all their emphasis on religion, were not informed by God to build a Neo-Noah's Ark. The gods of science must have not informed the liberals, either, that perhaps there is no proven link between the natural disasters and our use of oil.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator of New York, has an even better solution. Why don't the oil companies pay a large portion of the tax?
According to Times competitor, The New York Sun, Mrs. Clinton wants oil companies to "pay a portion of their profits to fund new tax incentives for consumers and companies who want to do what we believe is the right thing," or rather what Mrs. Clinton believes is the right thing.
Mrs. Clinton also said to the Sun that we cannot "just let the current marketplace go at its own pace." If Stalin had been alive, the words would probably bring a tear to his eye.
Way to improve our economy!
There is a more effective way to improve our economy: Congress should stop running up federal spending and the deficit, or curb pork-barrel legislation.
Columnist Karolina Lula is an NCAS economics and political science major and a junior senator in the SGA.
The paper ran an editorial this week arguing for higher taxes on gasoline because gas is to blame for the nation's problems with terrorism, the environment, and the economy.
Federal and state taxes are responsible for around 27 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline. Federal excise taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon, while state taxes average to 21 cents per gallon. This does not include additional sales taxes imposed by some states, counties and cities.
The Times editorial argues that the increase in taxes, most of which will be borne by the consumer, will decrease the demand for gasoline. This in turn, the writers believe, will force companies to search for more fuel-efficient environment-friendly solutions. What the writer does not take into account is that the demand for gasoline is inelastic, which means that regardless of the price, consumers will purchase the same amount. They do admit that gas taxes are "painfully regressive."
In addition, the gas tax would not significantly improve our environment. The Times editorial would like to nurture certain myths that help them advocate enormous government spending.
The oil-guzzling SUVs of the conservatives are to blame for Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, maybe even an earthquake in Pakistan. When we tinker with nature she gets angry.
The liberals know that the conservatives are to blame because their devil-may-care attitude toward the environment has caused natural disasters.
One cannot measure the depths of the heart of a liberal. Liberals are so compassionate that even though the Red States brought these disasters upon themselves, they cry that the government's spending is still not enough. And then they wonder why the Red States, with all their emphasis on religion, were not informed by God to build a Neo-Noah's Ark. The gods of science must have not informed the liberals, either, that perhaps there is no proven link between the natural disasters and our use of oil.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator of New York, has an even better solution. Why don't the oil companies pay a large portion of the tax?
According to Times competitor, The New York Sun, Mrs. Clinton wants oil companies to "pay a portion of their profits to fund new tax incentives for consumers and companies who want to do what we believe is the right thing," or rather what Mrs. Clinton believes is the right thing.
Mrs. Clinton also said to the Sun that we cannot "just let the current marketplace go at its own pace." If Stalin had been alive, the words would probably bring a tear to his eye.
Way to improve our economy!
There is a more effective way to improve our economy: Congress should stop running up federal spending and the deficit, or curb pork-barrel legislation.
Columnist Karolina Lula is an NCAS economics and political science major and a junior senator in the SGA.