Normally I would support Doug´s position on this issue, except for one thing: the compliance cost issue. However, this doesn´t extend to the opposition to gasoline taxes that Jordan Hayes has voiced - precisely because with gasoline taxes there is no substantial compliance cost problem.
I think Marx somewhere says something to the effect that human society only poses problems to itself that it can actually solve. Basically this is a statement that encapsulates one of the tenets of modern complexity theory.
We are actually interested in getting substantial positive changes enacted, aren´t we? If so, creating boondoggles isn´t the way to go. I have no idea, however, how one could justify opposition to gasoline taxes and yet manage to be taken seriously. There are exactly two ways for the U.S. to establish a resource equilibrium with the rest of the world: a) tax resource usage so as to encourage more responsible behaviour, b) wait for the rest of the world to withdraw the punch bowl.
Everybody here knows how that punchbowl-withdrawal-option works, right? That´s when economists come in to celebrate some economic cleansing (aka a healing recession). And some more cleansing (aka depression), if small dosages don´t help. And ultimately there would be government by executive order if the electorate continued to be stubborn.
All the while we could be very principled and point out that some of our demands were not fulfilled beforehand so unfortunately we couldn´t get involved with the political process in any serious way.
Joerg