The thought process of Leftards never fails to amaze me. Especially those who are all about the “It’s Man’s fault for Global Warming! Yeaarrrrrrgggggh!” Case in point, more from Laurie “The Private Jet Was Going That Way Anyhow” David
For months now, Tom Friedman has been saying that the only solution to breaking our dependence on oil is to raise the gasoline tax — which in now a miniscule 18 cents a gallon. And a new New York Times/CBS poll this week provided jaw-dropping evidence that Americans would support such a tax increase — as long as it was used to slow global warming and reduce our oil dependence. This finding goes against the conventional wisdom that even talking about raising taxes is a political death wish. And, as Friedman points out, the public came to this conclusion without a single Democrat or Republican taking the lead on the gas tax issue.
What a spectacular idea. And, as those increased costs from the taxes roll up to the companies then roll down to the consumer, will everyone support the tax increases? Will they enjoy the higher costs of products and services? And, will increases actually do anything? Or will the leftards pass legislation forcing the companies to eat the higher cost of doing business?
If you read the rest of the Laurie’s post, you will see a blurb about mandating higher fuel efficiency. Hey, Bush 41, and particularly Bill Clinton, never should have relaxed the rules to start with. Maybe that caused the brain infartcion which made Al Gore go insane after he lost the 2000 Election.
However, I do agree that we should raise fuel economy, particularly on SUV’s and trucks. But, as usual, the Limousine Liberal has no idea what to do, other then asking Bush (snicker) to “do something.” You have to wonder why none of the environmentally friendly Democrats has introduced legislation. I personally do not believe that many would vote against it. It would get lots of air play. Apparently, the idea that a Democrat could actually introduce legislation is lost on the Leftards.
Meanwhile, when are you going to give up your private jet, Laurie?
Mandating any more stringent standards for fuel efficiency is such an anti-free market strategy, the Law of Unforeseen Consequences dictates it will have negative effects on the overall economy. If people don’t want higher fuel efficiency vehicles–and are unwilling to pay the additional cost–why should the government force them to?
While I agree with you on that, I think there is a point that the Fed gv’t should jump in, not so much as to save oil, but to lower air pollutants.