Re: BEFORE Trying To Simply Hike the Fuel Tax . . .

HarryNadds wrote:
> On May 3, 10:11 am, BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>>
>> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>>
>> Anyone who ****fts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
>> to afford it.
>>
>> Bret Cahill
> 
> There we go.The typical moonbat response. Mandate that the american
> people make drastic lifestyle changes instead of doing the right thing
> and drilling for oil and building refineries.Will your mandate include
> the elites in Hollywood and the limousine liberals in Wa****ngton??
> Did'nt think so.

You why we have gridlock in Wa****ngton.  Conservatives like you won't 
accept ANY conservation policies (didn't you know the words 
"conservative" and "conserve" had the same root).  While liberals like 
Greenpeace won't accept any additional oil drilling.  And the gridlock 
goes on.

I would like to lock the both of you in a room and insist you compromise 
on a bipartisan policy you both can sign up to.  That means you must 
accept some conservation, and the liberals must accept some oil
production.



-- 
Steven L.
Email:  sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 the NOSPAM before replying to me.