Most of us here have known for a long time that gas prices in the US have been unrealistically low, and that higher gas prices would encourage conservation and the development of alternate energy sources. But I think we also realize that convincing Americans to voluntarily pay a dollor or more per gallon of gas just to make its price higher is a complete non-starter. So my thought was, is there a way to
frame a higher gas price in such a way that it would be viable in the context of American politics?
Here are some considerations: while Americans are unlikely to accept a new tax just to make gas prices higher, they have frequently shown themselves willing to live with higher taxes and/or new tax vehicles if there is a specific need for them--look at the 16th amendment, for example. That is, tax revenues must be
targeted to a specific purpose. In the case of a gas price, the targets are obvious: subsidization of alternative energy sources; reducing the environmental impact of energy use; reducing the amount of energy used.
Next, much of the rhetoric about gas prices has been victim oriented. Some say, make consumers pay more for gas; some say, impose a new windfall tax on producers; some say cut subsidies to energy companies. In each case, there is a vigorous defense made by those who would be affected by the policy, and not much happens. But if we could borrow a page from the Clintons here, what might be more acceptable is if the burden were shared as equally as possible by all concerned: a new tax on consumer, targeted to a specific need; limits on windfall profits; fewer subsidies for the petroleum producers and consumers. Americans do understand fair play and will accept the inevitable if they don't think they are being singled out as the scapegoat. That is, the burden must be shared equitably.
Finally, there is the problem of how to frame this so that the general public, in both Red and Blue states, are attracted to it. A lot of the problem is the word "tax", which, apparently for religious reasons, is a profanity to many Americans. I think that one way around this is to make a connection between this wordy-dird and another word that is more positive than tax is negative: independence. That's why I think that calling this the Energy Independence Tax would help a great deal to make it acceptable.
There is another reason why that name would help it pass, and I am actually sad that it is true. Many Americans blame our problems on foreigners. Instead of focusing on developing a rational energy policy, much effort has been made to "end our dependence on foreign oil". I think this is misguided, but on the other hand, a program such as I am envisaging here would probably reduce our need to buy oil overseas, which would probably make the so-called "oil tyrants" less powerful, possibly benefiting our neighbors as well as ourselves. Be that as it may, the implication that a primary target of the program is our dependence on foreign oil is a major aspect of its frame.
So, the program to be called the Energy Independence Tax would have three main components: (1) a new, fairly hefty (~ $1.00/gal) federal tax on gasoline (with equivalent taxes on other petroleum-based energy products); (2) there would also be a gradual, phased-in reduction of subsidies to oil companies and to their allied industries such as highways, automobiles, etc., plus laws taxing windfall profits; (3) the funds from both of these sources, consumers and suppliers, would be targeted toward alternate energy development, energy conservation, and reduced environmental impact of energy use.
Well, that's my idea for today.
Greg Shenaut