Why are gas prices not an issue for Kerry...is it because of the 50 cent

[digno dave]

tax he "supported"? We never hear Kerry pound on this issue. Does he keep quiet about it becasue he knows Bush will mention the 50 cent tax Kerry supposedly suported?

[Thrill]

1. Kerry pounds on the price of gas in

almost every stump speech

[Barney Rocks]

2. It is not politically

feasible to push for a gas tax at the moment. It would hurt Kerry's chances to win.

However, I personally have nothing against such a tax--it could have some good benefits!

[deadmessengers]

10. No, it's quite politically correct to say it.

What's politically incorrect to point out is the transportation alternatives you pointed out work very well in high-population-density areas, but don't work at all in places where it's "drive or die". It's really easy to say "just ride a bike!", when you actually HAVE that option - but for most of us, it's not.

For example, I live in a semi-rural area, 27 miles from where I work. Clearly, walking or biking are not an option for people like me. Public transportation is not an option, either - the nearest public transporation facility is a bus line 14 miles from my home.

So, I drive my 4-cylinder Accord to work. And a 50-cent gas tax would hurt like hell, but not nearly to the degree that it would hurt my asshat neighbor in his Expedition. So, I'm all for that - and it's a perfectly progressive tax. If you've got enough money for an Exploder, you can spring for the non-subsidized cost of the gas for it. Hell, I would support a bigger gas tax increase ($1?) if I knew that money would be irrevocably earmarked for R&D on alternative fuel technologies.

[AndyTiedye]

3. If We Had Passed That Tax, and Spent the Money on Transit

We'd have a kick-ass transit system,
and a lot more hybrid cars to choose from.
Gas prices might actually be lower today.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I'd expect a post like this a couple weeks before the election from a

freeper.

[aquart]

5. How nice of you to bring up that issue.

What, BTW, is wrong with a gas tax? Or are you opposed to all taxes and, perhaps, all government services?

Cars that guzzle gas, pay more tax. Fuel efficient cars pay less tax because they use less gas.

You want the government to do away with its sole incentive to fuel efficiency?

Because it ain't like Bush has done anything to help us in that area.

Kerry doesn't have to bring it up. Gas is an anti-Bush ad everytime a citizen fills a tank.

[politicat]

9. It ends up being regressive, though....

The poor who live in areas with crappy public transit usually can't afford to buy a new, efficient car and are stuck with the cheap, cast-off gas guzzlers that the more wealthy discard when they trade up.

The problem is not being able to get decent credit to buy a new vehicle at low interest rates on long term credit (and not getting a decent warranty) if you're poor. So you buy what's cheap on the used market, which is usually something less efficient because you can't scrape together $22K for a prius, but you can scrape together $2K for a 10 year old Ford.

Then you add in higher fuel prices and it causes a chronic problem.

And as the article on the suburbanization of poverty shows, the poor are stuck needing cars.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=usatoday/suburbsgrassisntalwaysgreener

Push for real, usable public transit... pour $87 billion into nationwide public transit and watch the jobless rate plummet.

Pcat

[deadmessengers]

12. Public transport isn't the only answer.

The real problem, IMNSHO, is suburban sprawl. As long as local community zoning boards continue to make it easy for low-population-density development to continue, we're going to need cars. Encourage higher-density development in our cities, and public transport will become a lot cheaper per rider mile. Then, we won't NEED $87B in public transport money - it'll cost a lot less to develop, and will be self-sustaining through rider-paid fares.

[politicat]

13. Actually, we will need 87 B for nationwide programs.

And the sprawl is already there... what are we supposed to do? Tear down those houses?

Yes, we've made a mistake in letting our county commissioners build the sprawl and not making developers responsible for the costs associated with sprawl. But we have the problem... now we have to deal with it.

And the way to deal with it is not to release the SPR. That's a band-aid. It's a long term solution that's needed, not a quick fix that ends up making us sicker in the long run.

(Since we have the sprawl, how do you propose dealing with it? It's there....)

Pcat

[deadmessengers]

15. No quick fix

There is no quick fix. It took us 50 years to screw up, and it'll take just as long to fix. The sprawl is there, and all we can do right now is to keep it from getting worse. What I think will happen then is that our nation's population will increase, which will in turn force population densities to go up (infill housing), making public transport more realistic.

It's not going to happen overnight, though. And, I agree that making gasoline cheaper is NOT the answer - I support a $.50/gal gas tax, but only if it's earmarked for alternative fuel development - that's the real answer.

Jon

[politicat]

16. No, there are no quick fixes.

Even building alternative transportation systems isn't going to work quickly. We're trying to get a Chicago style rail system (the rails are there, and mostly unused) and it's going to take 12 years to implement fully....

One of the counties we live in (we have 2 houses) is really good about controlling sprawl; the other is contributing to it as fast as the Board of Supervisors can meet. (This in a county that can't afford the water for all those new houses...) In both communities, we live in infill housing... and can't sell either one of the houses. People want new, new, new.... because they're consuming sheep.... *sigh* /rant off.... Sorry about that... tired of paying two mortgages...

Of course, we need to really be addressing the population problem, too... the third and fourth kids aren't helping matters.

Pcat

[wuushew]

6. What Kerry should hammer Bush on is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

and why he has not released oil to help drive down oil prices as per Clinton.

There is no guarantee that the media would cover any energy related comments since all the news channels seem to repeating Alan Greenspan's lie that high gas prices are not affecting the economy.

[blindpig]

8. not

that would be a temporary quick fix that would do nothing but continue our insane consumption. The only thing that could be done to keep oil prices down(for the short term) would be to invade oil producing countries and take their oil. Ooops, we did try that didn't we. Please see Peak Oil.
Kerry's right not to make promises he can't keep.

[politicat]

11. the SPR is a drop in the bucket compared to consumption.

We consume about 20 million barrels of oil a day. (source: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aYs9OOSqxAqE&refer=news_index)

The SPR is 700 million barrels. (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113.html)

That would let us run for 35 days.

Even if we release it over time, it still has to be refined, and that takes time.

The SPR is an EMERGENCY backup. We're tight, but this isn't an emergency.

An emergency is when Saudi decides they're done with us. THEN we release the SPR.

Releasing it now would be like giving someone the only anti-biotics we have in our emergency bomb shelter kit for a cold. It would waste the resource and do nothing about the overall problem.

Pcat

[papau]

7. He never supported a 50 cent tax hike- he did not dismiss it when proposed

in a speech by Clinton's Robert Reich - but did dismiss it later.

It never was written up into a bill.

The 4 cent gas tax hike under Clinton was the only gas tax hike that I know of that was serious - and indeed passed.

[BrendaStarr]

14. Hasn't it been proven that Kerry never supported a $.50 gas tax?

And in fact they have the goods on Cheney voting for the same when he was in the House of Representatives.

This was up at the debunker at johnkerry.com much earlier.

If you want to know what the Rs are doing you can always look at what they say others are doing.