> I totally grant that gas taxes are regressive, and that that
> should be counted against them. But if we accept that being
> regressive doesn't disqualify a tax all on its own ...
Do 'we' accept that? I mean, if you can't be against a tax because it's regressive ... that's a pretty high bar. I fully grant that it's traditional to tax things like gasoline, and maybe I'm being a purist on this, but it seems like the only good thing about the Federal gasoline tax is that it's based on a formula that's not sensitive to the price: it's $0.184/gal. And sure, that's not that much, especially these days. But what do you think of McCain's idea of how to put $10B into people's wallets this summer? Better or worse than gearing up the IRS to send out checks and encouraging 20M+ people (mostly seniors) to file a 1040 that they don't need to file? hey, it's only $10B you're collecting anyway, what's that: a weekend in Iraq?
Are you saying that there are some tax cuts you're against? :)
> it's the best tool for its particular job, unlike bridge tolls
> or congestion pricing.
Well, this brings back the question of what it's "job" is ... I've seen several suggestions:
1) Targeted "user fee" to pay for infrastructure
(I counter that the General Fund is a better way to pay for
infrastructure: it's more fair and it's more efficient)
2) Disincentive to drive
(I counter that it's disingenuous to discourage people from driving
now that a nearly car-mandatory society has been encouraged/built
unless/until there are better alternatives)
What job are you talking about?
> The period 1979-1986 seems to give pretty clear evidence that
> high gas prices lead over the medium term to a large scale renovation
> of the transportation fleet ...
Does it actually give us evidence of this? Or is it merely correlated? Did Honda take off in the US market because gas was expensive, or because they were making a cheaper, better quality car that also happened to make you feel good about efficiency? In the last decade, we've seen manufacturing quality increases that have led to "never needs an oil change" cars being produced; is this because oil is expensive? Oil changes?
And if this is "evidence" then why didn't the long-haul truck fleet do likewise? Al Gore, of all people, couldn't even lead an effort to bring the minimum from 4mpg to 5mpg in the diesel truck fleet. Feh.
> [...] with people buying smaller cars with better gas mileage.
As I'm sure you know, I'm all for people buying smaller, more efficient, cleaner cars. Anyone who is looking for a car ought to consider those items. At the same time, if you're not buying a new car, you're probably getting whatever you can afford. There used to be a time when the government was responsible for setting and holding the auto industry to higher-and-ever-higher standards. They've failed at that, and so now the idea instead is to punish the consumers who aren't buying the promised-and-as-yet-undelivered 100mpg cars?
> Give us another 7 years, and the Explorer might become as rare
> as the velvet lined Oldsmobile with electric-powered planetarium
> seat adjustment.
I think a better way would be to discourage sales -- and thus manufacturers -- of new autos that don't meet tough, high mileage and emission standards. A tax that's avoided altogether -- by not buying the Explorer in your case -- is a great tax, IMHO ... as opposed to a tax that's paid grudgingly because there's no alternative.
> it seems clear that Europe and Japan have got much more fuel
> efficient fleets in large part because they've got much
> higher gas taxes.
And yet the growth of passenger miles driven in both places continues to spiral upwards. We've been through this before: Europe is different from the US because driving is more of a luxury due to how the cities and transportation grid is layed out, and this didn't start with high gas taxes. Europe also has VAT, which skews the taxation issue quite a bit. I'm also not as much of a tax-buff for the European systems, so I can't tell you what actual impact it has.
I get the feeling that high gas taxes in Europe prevent people from making choices about where to live, etc. -- choices that by in large aren't available in the US, and in that sense functions differently than it does here. Japan, of course, has geography-induced density. Apples, oranges; which one is more red?
> So since it seems we have evidence that high prices work on a massive
> scale to accomplish a good and important goal ...
I'm still not with you that this is the cause, but I like your seque; presume the sale! :-)
> lowering energy consumption in the transportion fleet, and lowering
> energy consumption expectations ...
Couldn't we do the same (and more!) by passing stronger/higher regulations for new vehicles? And by expanding transit spending at the same time as expanding tax incentives to employers/employees for taking transit?
Don't we really want to focus our energy on long-haul trucks and ocean-going ships? And what about helping China to deploy (much!) cleaner coal burning plants, you know, before it's too late? Isn't a gasoline tax on individual consumers dwarfed by the possibilities of targeted action and spending? Er, fight the real enemy?
I'm for dropping the gas tax, but I'll settle for doing any of the above instead of simply raising it. It also ties into my screed about personalizing these Big Problems. If you personalize it, those who feel guilty about it will accept their part of it and forget to look for the bigger culprits.
/jordan