Pay More, Drive Less, Save the Planet

Forums: Politics, Greenwhackism, Helpalgormakehisfirstbillion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683675332597955.html

Quote:

What is the appropriate response to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who as General Motors prepared to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection declared that he wants to "coerce people out of their cars"? One might be inclined to dismiss these words as overkill -- except for recently introduced legislation by some congressional heavy-hitters that would take us down this road.

First there was the "Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009," introduced in May by Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Next, in June, came the "Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009," introduced by James Oberstar (D., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Messrs. Rockefeller and Lautenberg aim to "reduce per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis." Mr. Oberstar wants to establish a federal "Office of Livability" to ensure that "States and metropolitan areas achieve progress towards national transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals."

What does this mean? Most travel is not for its own sake. So reducing the total miles traveled -- whether the length or number of trips -- means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be "coerced," in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends....

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 568 • Replies: 9

No top replies

Owl Gore sucks the life out of the planet... film at 11:00

0 Replies

Messrs. Rockefeller and Lautenberg, are old enough to remember the model T. Yet, they are bold enough to use the so called energy problem as a means to raise taxes and provide even more govt control over society.

Feul efficient vehicles has been an issue for 30 years and these 2 geezers have been in office long enough to come up with a better solution than this.

For 30 years, no one pressured US Automakers to make fuel efficient cars. They they cry the world is ending.

These 2 clowns should have rooms reserved for them at the local Nursing Home. Get out!

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

For 30 years, no one pressured US Automakers to make fuel efficient cars.

The Japanese care makers pressured the US makers to make better and more fuel efficient vehicles via competitive products, but our government and the UAW decided it was way to tough for America to step up to the challenge. They decided to ignore the real problem and make the the Japanese move over here if they wanted to do business here. This was supposed to level the playing field... hows that plan working out?

Isn't Obama trying to "level the playing field" in many different areas right now? More failure on the way.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Much as I dislike "sin taxes", I would support a significant fuel tax to reduce consumption. Notice that this would reduce fuel useage, without taxing miles driven. Any form of mileage tax would very likely make the largest SUVs and personal use pickups have the same tax applied as the thriftiest subcompact.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I would support a significant fuel tax to reduce consumption.

We should levy a significant... no, crippling tax on everyone that voted for Obama.

That should remove more than half of the vehicles and most of the gas guzzlers from our roads overnight.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That does kind of resonate with my evil side, but no. It just wouldn't do. Anyway, revenue bills originate in the House. How many guesses do you need to figure out who would really get the tax increase?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Most travel is not for its own sake. So reducing the total miles traveled -- whether the length or number of trips -- means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be "coerced," in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends....

That comment is total bullshit.

"activities they want and need to do?"

Cut out that word Need and let's examine that word Want.

Want includes mindless wandering from place to place on weekends with absolutely no apparant goal.

The sheep that are out there going from one store to another, standing with their mouths agape at the pretty, useless trinkets don't even know what they want.

It's not want, it's mindless shuffling.

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

Much as I dislike "sin taxes", I would support a significant fuel tax to reduce consumption. ..

Problem is the money from the 'sin tax' would go directly to the production of other kinds of sin, under the direction of our demoKKKrat controlled congress.

George W. Bush only had to say the first word about drilling offshore and it knocked 20 bucks off the price of a barrel of oil the next day and gas was at $1.50 and head for less than a dollar, just last fall. The only thing which has happened since then is the dems winning an election.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

At least the dollars would stay in the country in which they were printed.

0 Replies

Pay More, Drive Less, Save the Planet

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know