|
People the price of Gasoline will go up and up, there is NOT much we can do about that fact. The increase in gasoline has to do with the simple fact world wide oil production has peaked or will peak, the Dollar is in decline and the rest of the world are willing to pay top price for oil. Unless a huge new source of oil is found (and NO geologist is counting on that, all state the big field were found prior to 1970, the fields being found today would NOT even have been reported as a find in the 1960s).
Thus we have to address the problem on HOW TO SOLVE THE UPCOMING OIL SHORTAGE. We can wait for it to hit, but it would be better to plan ahead for it to minimize loss of jobs, loss of economic opportunity and even the loss of access to food. NOT increasing gasoline tax is just doing that, delay addressing the problem oil production decline till we can avoid it no longer (i.e. when no one can afford gasoline, but that will be to late).
Oil production will decline, and we need to adjust to a post-oil economy. Now oil will be produced for about another 140 years, but in declining amounts each year. Hubbert peak follows a standard statistical curve. For the lower 48 states it peaked in 1970, so today, 35 years later, the lower 48 is producing about the same oil as we did in 1935, 35 years before the US peaked in 1970. In 1935 the US was the dominate oil EXPORTER in the world, tells you how much we have changed since 1935 do to access to cheap oil.
The problem is that in 1935 we had a very effective Mass Transit system, farming was still horse dominated, most inner-city travel was by train, either coal or Electric driven. All of which has died out since 1945 and the US completely embracing the automobile lifestyle. To use the oil we used in 1935, all of these items will have to be re-instated and ALL of them cost money.
Furthermore, the above is just if we want to return to oil usage as used in 1935, but e also have to look forward and eliminate other excessive use of oil, i.e. Highway bottle necks. We know where they are, they are expensive to correct but once corrected will save a huge amount of gasoline (The "Big Dig" in Boston is an example of this).
If we would do adopt a Dollar a gallon tax, I would spend it as followings (Please note the 40 cents a gallon tax increase will NOT DO ANY OTHER THESE, instead will just permit upgrading of the existing interstate highway system):
1. 20 Cents on Rural Bridges that need to be replaced. These Bridges are in bad shape, but expensive to repair, but lack of repair forces people to drive 10-20 miles (or more) do to that Bridge being out. A huge saving in Gasoline.
2. 20 Cents on Getting mass transits off the streets (i.e. Streetcars underground). Most cities do NOT need a full scale subway like New York City, but if you were to use a cover and fill technology (i.e. dig up the road, install the rail line, then fill it over) you could replace most of the buses used in urban areas (And given no traffic to block them, permit them to be as fast as cars when moving people from one part of the city to the next). This is free up many roads from the buses that now clog them for buses travel on the same streets as cars. Both that people will use Mass Transit for it would be faster AND that the buses be off the Streets will help traffic flow. Both will reduce oil demand, and with the drop in demand so will price.
3. 20 Cents on inner city rail. When traveling less than 600 miles, rail is considered better than air, but only if you have more than four trains per day. Most US rail lines do NOT have that many trains a day. Many people will opt for rail if they did NOT have to wait all day for the only train that makes the trip. More people will opt for rail travel IF it would come more frequently and more reliable then it does at present, and the only way to improve such service is to buy new equipment and run the additional
4. 20 cents on bike trails. Most of the Cheap trails are in, what is needed are trails in urban areas where people can ride their bikes without fearing that a car will hit them. Again to save gasoline and give people transportation options other then driving their cars.
5. 20 cents on "bottle necks", intersections that are known to slow down traffic and waste gasoline waiting for lights and other traffic to go by. These should be given a number the Worse to the best. The rating should be based on how much FUEL in wasted at such intersections or other bottlenecks. The higher the rating, the sooner the problem of the bottleneck will be resolved. Most bottlenecks exist to to the expense of eliminating them, there are expensive and why they have lasted as long as they have. Most people know the bottlenecks in their hometown, and avoid them but most people can NOT do to the fact people have to go through them to get where they want to go.
Now as to other funds for the above projects. First, Congress does NOT like spending any money not dedicated to that project. While, under the US Constitution, the can be NO restriction on how certain taxes are spent, Congress remembers WHY certain taxes were spent and to protect themselves politically that money goes to that project. Yes, Excess Social Security Taxes goes into the General fund, but Congress set up a special "Treasury bond" system for such excess funds. The excess money is spent today, but Congress understand it has to be paid back to the Social Security Fund. IT would be political suicide to do otherwise. The same with the tax on Guns and Ammunition, Congress can spend the money anyway congress wants to, but do to political reality, that tax money goes to outdoors and hunting recreation. Yes, Congress can and has mis-spent money, but any bureaucrat has done that. Congress has been caught and suffered the Political punishment for such actions. That is the best way to prevent such abuses, punish Congress when that happens. Congressmen want to be re-elected and thus will minimize such abuse.
As to "Special Interest" spending (i.e. Earmarks) that is one of the cost of any Political system. The Earmarks most attacks and often the ones the does the most good (For example Congressman Murtha is Number 1 in earmarks, but most of those earmarks are for things needed to be done in his district, for example the completion of several rails to trails paths long delayed while the GOP controlled Congress). Yes, Earmarks are often attack, and with good grounds, but Murtha was attacked for being Number 1, but none of his earmarks were ever mentioned. Why? Because ALL of theme were justified and to mention them is to show he was justified in getting them (THe Rails to Trails is just one example).
My point is, this 40 cents a gallon would do more good then harm. It will provide money to improve infrastructure. It will encourage people to look at ways to cut their own gasoline usage (and at alternatives to gasoline usage). Given the overall situation with oil both are good things and we, as a nation, should be doing.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
