By on May 20, 2011

The average price of regular unleaded gasoline was $3.96 this week, an increase of 38 percent over the same time last year. US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) on Tuesday proposed to temporarily reduce that cost by 18.4 cent cents by suspending the federal gas tax. Under the freshman lawmaker’s plan, the highway trust fund would be replenished by reducing payments made to foreign governments.

“Let’s have a gas tax holiday,” Paul said in a floor speech. “Let’s take the money from foreign aid and let’s give it back to the American people who worked hard to earn it…. That would help people, that would lower the price of gasoline and that would be a stimulus to the economy.”

A four-month suspension would cost about $10 billion, about as much as the US spends on monetary assistance overseas. Paul blasted Senate Democrats for attempting to impose financial penalties on the five largest petroleum firms, which earned record profits last year, as a means of reducing the price at the pump.

“Their solution is to raise taxes on oil companies,” Paul said. “Do you know what taxes are? Taxes are simply a cost. If you run a business and I raise your costs, you’ll raise your prices. So let’s see, prices are too high, so we’re going to raise the costs which will raise the prices further. It makes absolutely no sense.”

Last year, ExxonMobil’s net income of $30.5 billion was just 8.2 percent of its $370 billion in sales, including all of the firms business ventures beyond oil. Many other industries enjoy much higher profit margins, such as beverage companies, computer equipment suppliers, pharmaceutical companies and the manufacturing sector.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) argued that members of Congress shared the bulk of the blame for the high price of gasoline by running deficits of $1.5 trillion a year. He suggested fiscal restraint as a cost reduction measure.

“Do my colleagues know why oil is expensive today?” Coburn said. “It is because the dollar is on its back and oil is priced in dollars. If we want the price of oil to go down, as it has this week and the tail end of last week, we want the value of the dollar to go up, because the world trades oil in dollars. Why is the dollar down? The dollar is down because an incompetent Congress continues to spend money we don’t have on things we don’t absolutely need. If we want the dollar to improve in value, what we have to do is hold the Congress accountable for doing what they were elected to do, which is live within our means.”

[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

71 Comments on “Senate Proposal Would Suspend Federal Gas Tax...”


  • avatar
    brettc

    Make it stop! As much as I dislike $4 gas/$4.20 diesel, it at least encourages people to conserve. Politicians act like tax holidays and domestic drilling are going to solve all our problems immediately. The only thing that will even help our addiction to dead dinosaurs is sustained high prices. Just my opinion of course.

    • 0 avatar
      jaje

      The usual short term thinking for political gain – rather than trying to take changes now and be better off in the long run. By people buying more fuel efficient cars now our gas prices will be more stable in the long run b/c we won’t have wasted as much driving gas guzzlers. It also helps our countries independence as the less we consume now through conservation the less we need to buy from foreign countries (the lower our trade deficit).

  • avatar
    aristurtle

    Ah, yes. “We’re spending more money than we’re taking in! Clearly the solution is to cut taxes!”. We need to take every member of Congress, from both political parties, and force them to re-take a sixth grade math course.

    If this passes, I’m buying stock in companies that sell rebuilt suspension components, because when the gas tax goes away road quality will take a nosedive.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Wow, 18 cents off a gallon when gas is $4 a gallon. That’s 5% off, on a temporary basis! I think I will file this under the “worthless pandering” category.

  • avatar
    Advance_92

    Foreign aid?! I didn’t know anyone was still roasting that old chestnut.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Last year, ExxonMobil’s net income of $30.5 billion was just 8.2 percent of its $370 billion in sales, including all of the firms business ventures beyond oil. Many other industries enjoy much higher profit margins, such as beverage companies, computer equipment suppliers, pharmaceutical companies and the manufacturing sector.

    What isn’t being mentioned here is that it’s profits keep breaking records, that they’re bigger than just about any other industry (even at lower margins), and that it’s operations have been and still are heavily subsidized by the American government in a way that Coca Cola or Apple could only dream.

    Oh, and every time oil prices spike they break even more records. So, yeah, no incentive, there. Hell, even if we cut gas taxes do you think, even for a moment, that the price of gas wouldn’t spike to about the same place in very short order? Only instead of enriching the public purse and helping with things like debt and necessary services, we’d be funding dividends, bonuses and stock options for Exxon and it’s ilk.

    • 0 avatar
      MikeAR

      There is something that has been bothering me for a while. I really haven’t said much about it but I think it’s time to bring find out. Ok, there is a group here that brings up oil company subsidies all the time as a way to excuse electric subsidies. It’s the old but everyone else is doing it excuse. Could someone quantify these subsidies for the rest of us? Or are they some progressive in the basement corporate/governemnt conspiracy? And don’t even start about war for oil and crap like that, that is old and tired.

      All of you do realize that, for better or worse, everyone uses every tax break possible. Those companies wouldn’t be doing their duty to their shoreholders if they didn’t. And why no griping about GE using their stroke with the current adminstration for their benefit and for that matter paying no taxes whatsoever. At least the oil companies pay some taxes. For that matter, where are your easily offended sensibilities when it comes to GM’s tax avoidance?

      You generally hate corporations except when they happen to game the system for your side. In other words, you love crony capitalism.

      • 0 avatar
        bill h.

        “You generally hate corporations except when they happen to game the system for your side. In other words, you love crony capitalism.”

        Perhaps. Then there’s the idea of letting people actually explain their motivations and positions on their own, rather than assigning them ones through your own ideological filter.

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        MikeAR: I believe it just goes back to the old adage: “It all depends on who’s ox is being gored”.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        And don’t even start about war for oil and crap like that, that is old and tired.

        So what if it’s old? It’s true. We don’t go to war for Coke. We don’t go to war for Apple. We don’t go to war for Nike. We do, in a way, go to bat for the likes of Disney, MGM/Universal and such, but only at the WIPO level, and not nearly for the same money. The bailouts for GM and Chrysler barely blip the needle versus what’s spent securing energy.

        But we go to war for, and provide security for, oil resources around the world.** And then there’s tax breaks, land rights, R&D credits and so forth.

        There’s some logic to the idea of energy being important for national security and productivity, and I’ll buy that and, in some ways, even support it. What gets my goat is the hyopcrisy of decrying subsidies and interventionism for Industry A (that’s affiliated with a cause you don’t like), but being curiously quiet on the same for Industry B (which sucks up to a cause that you do).

        Just because it’s so old that it’s structural doesn’t mean you can put your fingers in yours ears, hum, and pretend it doesn’t happen.

        Accusing me of loving crony capitalism is pretty rich, considering my preferred approach, in contrast to Mr. Paul’s, would be to revoke their corporate charter and nationalize them. You’re too big to fail? You need government to subsidize your security? Fine, but my take is we go Chavez on you in return.

        And believe me, I don’t have any sympathies for GE or Hollywood. None. What. So. Ever.

        ** and don’t try to say it’s not because of oil. There’s all sorts of awful places in the world that could benefit from interventionism and regime change, but curiously we’re not pushing for multilateral intervention there until we, the west, are dragged kicking and screaming.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Quick history lesson, we were attacked. There was an act of war, we responded. I’m not going to go into the right or wrong of the response except that we should have started with the House of Daud and gone from there.

        But trying to paint all national defense as a subsidy to oil companies is lazy and wrong. Why not say every business is getting a hidden subsidy because we have armed forces. GE for example is no less susidized than is Exxon. I’m consistent, I don’t like overt or covert subsidies of anything. I am against them all because we don’t have the money anymore.

        And Psar, I have griped about the bank bailouts a whole lot. The fact that no one at all has paid for their screwups in that whole episode is terrible. None of those bailouts should have happened and truthfully nationalization wouldn’t have been a bad outcome along with public trials and executions.

        Soome here hate questionalble oil company subsidies but thought bailing out GM was a great idea, you’re the ones not being consistent.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        Quick history lesson, we were attacked.

        Yeah, by people funded in one country and located in another. You attacked a third country who had nothing to do with it.

        I’m not going to go into the right or wrong of the response

        Yes, that’s because getting into it would mean discussing how it was, at best,a tail-wag-the-dog situation. At worst it’s trying to secure an oil-producing state that was going to sell it’s commodities in Euros.

        Soome here hate questionalble oil company subsidies but thought bailing out GM was a great idea, you’re the ones not being consistent.

        No, actually, most people can see the point to oil subsidies. I, and others, are pointing out that criticizing EV subsidies (or bailouts to GM) without even mentioning what’s spent on oil is hypocritical in the extreme.

        You cannot do what you accuse others of: supporting largess for one industry while decrying it for another. Or rather, you can (and some posters do), but must do so from the perspective of economic pragmatism, not ideological piety.

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        Psar, when have I ever come out in support of any subsidy? You say I have but when?

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        psarhjinian: But we go to war for, and provide security for, oil resources around the world.**

        The last time I checked, the U.S. isn’t the only country that depends on a steady supply of oil for everything from transportation to home heating/cooling needs.

        The idea that U.S. military action to secure a steady supply of oil somehow uniquely benefits only the U.S. is false.

        ALL oil-using nations are hurt if a major supply source is disrupted and prices dramatically increase. If anyone is being subsidized by U.S. military actions in the Middle East, it is the Europeans, Australians, South Koreans and Japanese.

        psarhjinian: No, actually, most people can see the point to oil subsidies. I, and others, are pointing out that criticizing EV subsidies (or bailouts to GM) without even mentioning what’s spent on oil is hypocritical in the extreme.

        It’s best to compare apples to apples. It’s not necessary hypocritical to criticize one subsidy while either ignoring or even approving another subsidy. Saying that it is hypocritical means that all subsidies are equally justified, which, of course, is false. This is as dogmatic as the strict libertarian approach (and, unfortunately, a lot more expensive).

        It is just that one subsidy can be justified; the others cannot, unless we use logic more twisted than Larry Flynt’s fantasy life.

        Oil is, at this point, the best form of energy for the broadest variety of uses. Only in green fantasies are wind, solar or geothermal competitive on a widespread scale with oil as a source of energy at this point. It is critical to our economy and standard of living.

        EV subsidies attempt to bring an INFERIOR technology on par with the current standard – the internal combustion engine. Conventional cars are more convenient, better performing and far more flexible than any EV.

        With the GM bailout – again, we are subsidizing the INFERIOR company when customers, voting with their hard-earned dollars, found superior alternatives on the market.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        Because of our (ultra) high gas taxes we can outspend you on the International oil market so no, you’re not securing our oil supply. Only you’re own

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden. So why attack Iraq?

    • 0 avatar
      aspade

      “and that it’s operations have been and still are heavily subsidized by the American government in a way that Coca Cola or Apple could only dream.”

      You mean like more severely taxing competing beverages, requiring an expensive license (that’s in many cases completely unavailable) to sell them at all, criminalizing having an open container of competing beverage nearly anywhere in public, or in your car, or at work, or giving one to your kids.

      Liquid diabetes wasn’t always the default beverage. The prohibitionists who legislated away the difference between a drink and being drunk effectively created the soft drink industry. Exactly as Coke would have dreamed.

    • 0 avatar
      VanillaDude

      Remember when billions was real money?
      We are TRILLIONS in debt.

      So you need to amp-up these penny-ante arguments gentlemen.

      Finger pointing at any corporation when the Federal Government is spending a $10 billion a day is like listening to morons argue about how swimming pools polluted the land when the giant tsunami wiped everything out.

      Over the past two years we have spent more money we do not have than we have ever had in the history of this country. No corporation or corporations can expand as fast as we need for them to succeed in order to tax them enough to pay for it all. Claiming that corporations are not doing their share to stem the flood of federal debt makes about as much sense as thinking the thing that killed the prisoner was the scratch on his finger, and ignoring the guillotine that hacked off his head.

      Stop the silly, obsolete arguments, will ya? It is 2011. Enough with the petty 20th Century arguments. Start talking trillions. Find some corporations earning that amount anywhere.

      Then do this every single year. $3,700,000,000.00 in 365 days. Gone.

  • avatar
    BlueEr03

    Wow Kentucky, you must be so proud of your new senator… he seems very bright.

    Here is what will happen, it will be suspended for 4 months; and then what, a 19 cent jump in price in one day? But everyone will know it is coming, so the gas stations will raise the price anyway (that whole supply/demand thing). So now you have the government funding gas stations instead of people fueling up and increasing our deficit while they do it.

    • 0 avatar
      weatherman

      I don’t think that’s what would happen. Instead, in four months the gas tax would go back for renewal and the Democrats who oppose it would be accused of raising taxes, so the “tax holiday” would be extended indefinitely. Of course, that would mean that our already crumbling national transportation infrastructure would get even less funding, so states would move to put up more toll roads. Meanwhile, foreign aid cuts would decrease our influence abroad, resulting in less opportunities for export or business development in foreign countries. China would step in and have even greater influence over natural resources, including oil, which would make the price rise even further. But Rand’s a short-con economist, he doesn’t get the long game or the big picture so that doesn’t matter to him – he’ll externalize all costs so long as someone else is picking up the bill.

  • avatar
    Neb

    Newsflash: Libertarian doesn’t like the effect of market forces, proposes massive government money giveaway to ameliorate effect slightly

  • avatar
    philadlj

    How’s this for wasteful government spending…that chart next to Senator Paul cost $40,000.

  • avatar
    Frownsworth

    “Their solution is to raise taxes on oil companies,” Paul said. “Do you know what taxes are? Taxes are simply a cost. If you run a business and I raise your costs, you’ll raise your prices. So let’s see, prices are too high, so we’re going to raise the costs which will raise the prices further. It makes absolutely no sense.”

    This guy never heard of non-linear taxes then. You can create a progressive tax which taxes oil companies progressively depending on their fiscal state. In that way, there is no way to compensate by linearly raising prices. That would also encourage more efficient business practices and more realistic profit margins.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    Pure Pandering.

  • avatar
    MrBostn

    I have no problem cutting foreign aid-just to do so but I don’t support the gas tax holiday he’s pushing.

  • avatar
    vvk

    What a loser. Gas price is determined by supply and demand. If tax is dropped the price will remain where it is. However, some people (undoubtedly his campaign contributors) will earn higher profits.

    If anything, the tax should be raised. We want smooth roads and safe bridges! Well maintained roads reduce fuel consumption, This, in turn, lowers demand and reduces gas prices. Win-win.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Paul said “… Taxes are simply a cost. If you run a business and I raise your costs, you’ll raise your prices. So let’s see, prices are too high, so we’re going to raise the costs which will raise the prices further…”

    That’s clearly false.
    Total Profit = Unit Profit x Units Sold
    where “Units Sold” is a dynamic function of unit price.

    When the cost/tax for a unit goes up, if the vendor insists to have the same “unit profit”, then “units sold” may be hurt too much. In most cases, choosing to have a slightly reduced unit profit will maximize the total profit.

    In other words, when there is a $1 additional tax on gas, maybe it’s best for Exxon to raise the price by $0.8 instead of $1. However, that’s still an additional $0.8 burden on consumers. Whether the government will use the $1 tax well enough to compensate for the $0.8 burden is still questionable, given the overhead and lack of accountability of governments.

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    Paul is grandstanding. For one thing, his proposal has no chance of being signed into law. Beyond that, to gut foreign aid is pretty penny-wise and pound foolish. Has Paul forgotten that we are the world’s largest power? Has he forgotten that foreign aid may can often be a much less expensive tool to protect our interests than military intervention?

    When are the Republicans going to get serious about energy policy?

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Foreign aid to for example Egypt and Pakistan isn’t aid but a bribe. Excluding those two countries alone and you are left with not much aid. Add the grain export subsidies and the other obvious cases of bribes and US government foreign aid is almost nothing

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        You forget that Israel gets more than $2 billion in aid.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Enabling countries to buy food at a cheaper rate is hardly anything to sneeze at. And virtually all foreign aid is really a “bribe.”

        And if our aid to Pakistan is nothing more than a “bribe,” it apparently isn’t working. There is this recent, rather notorious case where the Pakistani government apparently didn’t realize just which international criminal was living within its borders…

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        As far as i know the American troops are still resupplied through Pakistan. That is what the bribe pays for

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        We don’t have to “bribe” Pakistan for this to happen…anymore than we had to ask their permission to raid Bin Laden’s compound.

      • 0 avatar
        charly

        You want to move a fuel truck through another country without their permission? I think you like barbecues.

  • avatar
    MrBostn

    If gas consumption slows to a crawl because of cars like the Leaf or higher gas prices, how will the Highway Trust Fund be funded?

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      I’m pretty sure we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

    • 0 avatar
      Jellodyne

      Does Nissan make and electric 18 wheel tractor trailer?

      • 0 avatar
        wsn

        That’s actually very easy to do. 18 wheelers don’t care so much about packaging and own weight. Should be easy to stuff a couple tons of battery under it.

      • 0 avatar
        aspade

        Fitting in a few tons of battery would be quite doable, other than the staggering price. But still not all that helpful.

        Electric cars work, barely, on the strength of a relatively light, aerodynamic vehicle with regenerative braking not needing much power. The Leaf has the power equivalent of about two gallons of gas – and the battery weighs 200 kg to do it.

        A 18 wheeler on the highway burns 9-10 gallons of diesel an hour, and needs to do that for at least 3 or 4, often 8-10 hours at a stretch.

        You put in a 5,000 kg battery, and it’s empty in 300 miles. You’re going to go through three of those in a day. Truck stops would need warehouses full of dumpster sized batteries simultaneously re charging, cranes to swap them out, etc.

        Not economically viable. If oil is that hard to come by you’d do better to make one that uses coal.

  • avatar

    Tea bag moron. You want to lower gas prices…quit using SO much. Use the car/plane less or get a smaller one, get your FAT ass on a bicycle, MOVE to where the FOOD is.

    If anything it should be RAISED. 18 measly cents a gallon. The rest of the real world spends upwards of 10% of GDP on infrastructure. Here in trickledownville, we dont even spend 3%. And we are some $2 TRILLION behind in spending on that.

  • avatar

    Whatever the reason, just quit giving my tax dollars to foreign countries. I’m tired of supporting the rest of the world. I’d like to spend it on US!

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Keeping money in the US can still be a valid point, but keep in mind that we spend less than 1% of the federal budget on foreign aid.

      Many people think we spend a whole lot more.

  • avatar

    I like the idea. help people here in America instead of enriching other countries.

    • 0 avatar
      charly

      Raise the gas tax –> less gas consumption –> less import & less demand –> less green flowing out

    • 0 avatar
      Jellodyne

      All that foreign aid goes to cocktail parties and ski chalets and the like anyway. Cocktail parties where everyone stands around and jokes about how stupid the Americans are, in snotty European accents.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Again, we spend less than 1% of our budget on foreign aid. Next time there is a natural disaster in the third world, I don’t think I would be happy to know that victims will receive no help from us just so I could save $3.60 on my $76 fill-up.

      Now whether all of our foreign aid money goes to good causes or padding the coffers of governments we shouldn’t support, well, that’s another discussion entirely.

  • avatar
    charly

    Profit per gallon? The US government pays the highway system with the gas tax so profit per gallon for the US government is zero

  • avatar
    JJ

    If Rand was a Dutch politician, I would COMPLETELY agree with him. That’s because here in the Netherlands, gas tax is higher than almost everywhere else, as is foreign aid to developing countries as a percentage of the GDP (used to be 0.8% of the budget, now finally we have a slightly more ‘rightwing’ government who cut it back to, wait for it, 0,7%…In comparison the US spends approx 0,25% of its GDP on foreign aid).

    Since he is a US politician though, to me this seems almost like a bad joke, since gas is already so unbelievably cheap in the US from my point of view.

    I guess it all depends on what you’re used to and how you balance these things. There’s no general rule for it so it’s always arbitrary.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    If anything raise the gas tax. Personally I hope by next summer it’s at $5 a gallon and 6 the next year. I call it short term hurt, long term gain for the US.

  • avatar
    wsn

    The greatest foreign aid this nation has ever given out is buying middle east oil (and funding terrorism along the way).

    Rasing gas tax will be the most effective anti-terror strategy.

    • 0 avatar
      MikeAR

      Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are in the Middle East? Who knew? They are our 3 biggest sourceS of imported oil. Frustrating to get everything wrong isn’t it?

      • 0 avatar
        JJ

        We’ve been over this already MikeAR.

        Even IF the US gets a lot of oil from those three countries (and they still import plenty from the middle east as well), it just means other countries need to turn to middle eastern oil therefore increasing demand and price. Ultimately, US oil demand, one way or another, inevitably puts money in middle eastern hands, be it directly or indirectly.

        Not acknowledging this is just deliberately closing your eyes to the facts in order to convince yourself things are the way you want them to be.

        Not that I buy into the ‘if we buy foreign oil we fund terrorism’ stuff all that much.

  • avatar
    djoelt1

    When people replace their cars they effectively raise or lower the price per mile traveled. We just replaced a 33 mpg car with a 25 mpg car, so boom! Gas went up from $4 per gallon to effectively $5.30 per gallon overnight – 30% increase! In about six months, we’ll replace a 22 mpg car with a 50 mpg car, and it will appear that the cost of fuel went from $4 per gallon to $1.75 per gallon overnight!

    People punish themselves with their stupidity and it isn’t the job of congress to short change road building because many people are stupid.

  • avatar
    Mullholland

    If you were interested in fomenting a full-blown armed revolution in this country, just include a frighteningly informative CSPAN video sample of our puffed up, ignorant legislators in action like the one shown at the top of this post. The people of Kentucky should be ashamed and by association so should any American who seeks a different approach than the massive egos and rampant stupidity that passes for our representative government. After surviving barely a minute of Rand’s inane speechifying I think that instead of cutting foreign aid we should suspend the entire operating budget of the Congress for 6 months and buy everybody in the U.S. a free tank of gas. Now that’s some blatant pandering I can get behind.

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    Last year, ExxonMobil’s net income of $30.5 billion was just 8.2 percent of its $370 billion in sales, including all of the firms business ventures beyond oil. Many other industries enjoy much higher profit margins, such as beverage companies, computer equipment suppliers, pharmaceutical companies and the manufacturing sector.

    If we tax ExxonMobil at 100% – it would last three days, since the Obama budget spends $10,000,000,000.00 A DAY!

    An 8.2% profit is only 1.2% higher than normally approved for publically regulated power utilities.

    Senator Paul’s proposal is to highlight our current situation. It is a political move, not a practical solution. His proposal is just normal business in the US Senate. Get a grip, no one believes this could pass, including Senator Paul. It got him on these pages, didn’t it?

    Coburn is correct. It is the weakening dollar which is a large part of the increase since last year.

    When gas prices go up, the cost of everything goes up. So those bloggers focusing merely on the cost of driving are overlooking the costs of moving anything which impacts the costs of anything. When gas prices go up 20% – this means a cost increase in almost everything. You cannot isolate the gas price increases to merely reflecting the cost of driving.

    Anyone thinking it is beneficial to raise gas prices is a boob.

    • 0 avatar
      Advance_92

      In short, cheap gas is too big to fail? Though since our infrastructure is already crumbling I’d say we’re not really avoiding failure at the moment.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        As long as the dollar continues to fall, gas prices will continue to increase. Couple this to our current 10% inflation rate and expect to see gas prices go up, just reflecting the lost value in the US dollar.

        We spent trillions we did not have, and continue to spend trillions we will not have. There is simply no way we can find the revenue needed to pay this debt back. You can tax the Fortune 500 at 100%, and end all three wars, but the savings and revenue will not be enough to make up for one year’s worth of spending at the federal level.

        So, there is no other way except to see our money worth less as we devalue it in order to start making ends meet.

        This will mean higher gas prices.

        This is all not a good thing. It is simply theft by government.

  • avatar
    aspade

    Cutting broad base taxes and paying for services with user fees is a Libertarian plank. The gas tax is about as close as a major tax comes to that, even if it does fail in some details. Cutting that and making up the difference with a credit card that must ultimately be paid off with higher income taxes is not any kind of progress.

  • avatar
    RobertR

    I know this would not apply to Rand Paul, but I have always felt that it would be reasonable for most Republicans to support the gasoline tax (basically a user fee as some other commenters have mentioned). It is effectively a regressive tax – or to others, a “fair” tax – to the average consumer, in that to an extent, everyone, at every income bracket, has to drive his or her car a certain amount.

    But that attitude never seems to exist, and that is surprising. All the posturing would be more reasonable to me if the average republican lawmaker avoided attacking every tax at every opportunity. After all, if we get rid of all the taxes, how to we pay their salaries?

    • 0 avatar
      MikeAR

      Why do you try and make an example out of Republicans only? Is it your ideology? You whine about regressive taxes, then support a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percent with no deductions, no loopholes, no nothing. Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it?

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    Despite the oil companies 8.2% profit they still set record quarterly profits every single time the cost of gasoline spikes including this time. They raised the prices on gasoline that was already refined from oil purchased before oil prices spiked. And did it in unison. Most likely that would result in anti trust charges for any other industry.

    But of course, the oil companies will never have any federal intervention because they are too powerful and it doesn’t matter which party is in power.

    Paul’s ploy is pure philandering that makes zero economic sense. Lets face it, we all know it, Washington politicians do the bidding of lobbyists not the American public. It has been mentioned numerous times over the years that the bills they pass are by and large drafted by lobbyists. Many of the bills enacted into law are not even read completely by Congress. Until there is a complete overhaul of how business is done in Washington nothing will change. And I might add I don’t expect to see any changes/overhauls in my lifetime. No matter which party is in power it’s business as usual.

  • avatar
    vento97

    Who really benefits from this??? The answer is:

    Democrats and Republicans – first-world propserity for themselves, third-world prosperity for the taxpayer…

  • avatar
    Glen.H

    Financially you guys a completely screwed. Cutting or increasing fuel tax is not going to make much difference either way for the consumer or government finances when you are still hemorrhaging money on ill-considered military adventures. Your government cannot raise the tax it needs to function properly without committing political suicide and the sorts of funding cuts (e.g getting rid of Medicare)proposed by the Tea Party,etc is just another route to political suicide. Rand Paul is simply grandstanding here.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States