> Will they embrace the latter-day populist Luddism (the direction
> that Jordan & James seemt o be going) and end up in bed with oil
> companies and developers? Or will they choose a progressive
> solution, and side with environmentalists and "yuppies"?
I'm not even sure I can parse this statement (are you saying I'm in bed with the oil companies!?), but I think you're at least setting up a false dichotomy: if you're rural and mid-to-low economic class and driving isn't a luxury and wanting lower prices and taxes puts you "in bed with oil companies and developers"; and if you're rich and urban and shrug off the higher price as you fill up your $80k car, you're, um, an environmentalist?
I think this makes plain what I've always said: these kinds of binary distinctions (which are practically your calling card) are useless for policy, because they over-simplify. Yes, the urban yuppie could be incented to drive less; and yes, the rural working class can be given a break on the impact that higher gas taxes and prices are having on their standard of living.
There's no contradiction here.
What's this magic bullet? Progressive income taxes in the place of "user fees" -- the urban BMW driver is affluent and can afford a higher income tax rate; the rural car-dependent citizen could pass less at the pump. The higher-income person _by definition_ spends their money on luxuries; you don't have to do a careful calculation, because almost all discretionary spending is luxury.
It should be virtuous and luxurious to pay more tax into the General Fund.
:-)
/jordan