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

On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:02:14 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In sci.econ, BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <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 shifts 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?

You would do well to actually look at the Constitution and understand that
YOUR House of Representatives is in charge of fiscal policy.  I KNOW this
will coma as a shock to you, especially if you are a Republican.  So "WE"
decide by putting the right people into OUR House of Representatives.

Many people make the mistake of "The Clinton Tax Increase of 1993" when,
in fact that tax code started in 1990 and was created by the Democratic
Congress.  It was Clinton's tax code to the extent that Al Gore cast the
tie breaking vote in the Senate so Clinton could sign it.  Fiscal
responsibility is NOT easy.

> 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.

Referendums suck.  Whoever has the most money to run ads gets what they
want.

> 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.

Not only Congress.  But more specifically the House.  The role of the
(P)resident in this deal is that (s)he gets to run her/his mouth while
the "news" people role the tape.

> Judicial?  Maybe if someone sues.  Maybe.

Nope....  It's the House.

> 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.)

That is the ticket but the Senate is a piece of crap and it can't be
changed without rewriting the whole damned Constitution.  The most
rational means by which we can control our government is by
dramatically expanding the membership of the House:

http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

> 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.

CHOOSE!  You can have a true "republican form of government", or you can
have the latter day Republican form of empire, complete with an emperor.

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

Yes...   We will note that the executive branch has _NO_ legislative role
whatsoever.  Believe it, or not!

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend