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

In sci.econ, BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
 wrote
on Sun, 4 May 2008 10:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
<7a5803da-07d3-4773-b0dd-41b257379b86@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>> > > > 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.
>> > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery
slope.
>>
>> > Which is what? ?Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
>>
>> > Bret Cahill
>>
>> Exactly. You have decided
>
> I'm not in charge of fiscal policy.  The _people_ will have decided.

And how, precisely, do we decide?

Referendum?  Maybe in some states, and look what California's gotten
itself into with such.  Gods, what a mess *our* Constitution is.  The
Federal version only has, thankfully, 27 Amendments.

Executive?  No (delusions of grandeur notwithstanding),
although the Executive does propose a budget every year,
and sometimes it even gets passed verbatim (if the Prez and
both Houses are the same party, as was the case 2001-2006,
but even then the Budget wasn't passed unmodified).
However, Congress holds the power of the purse, and always
has, in theory anyway.

Judicial?  Maybe if someone sues.  Maybe.

Representative voting?  Aye, that's the ticket, and exactly
what we're doing now.  Half of our senators are Republican;
half are Democrats.  (Give or take maybe two.)

Feet?  If we're *really* lucky, we'll exchange our cars
for bicycles or used shoe leather, and stop paying for
gas.  Admittedly, there are a number of issues regarding
zoning that may need addressing first.  I in particular
am employed at a job 20+ miles distant; fortunately,
there's mass transit (Caltrain).

>
> If you want to continue handing billions over to oil rich despotims
> then you need to persuade voters.

There are problems either way.

>
> . . . .
>
>> So what comes next?
>
> Anything that falls under Art. I Sec. 8.
>
> Next question?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows.  The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**