PDA

View Full Version : Since you can't rely on Bush to provide the facts...



Pain_is_temp
04-14-2004, 07:44 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=165

Here are the real facts about John Kerry and his "support" for a .$50 gas tax a DECADE ago!

Bush's Gas Attack: Does Good Policy Make Bad Politics?
Kerry once voiced support for a 50-cent increase in the gasoline tax. Bush calls that "wacky," but Bush's chief economist praised the idea.

March 30, 2004
Modified: March 30, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A Bush ad released March 30 attacked Kerry for once supporting the "wacky" idea of raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. That was a decade ago. More recently, the man who later became Bush's own chief economist said higher gasoline taxes would lead to "less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming" and that raising gasoline taxes 50 cents to pay for a cut in income-tax rates "may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer." How "wacky" is that?


Analysis



As we've noted before , Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon. Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76.


Good Policy or "Wacky" Idea?

The Bush ad ridicules Kerry for "wacky ideas" such as "taxing gasoline more so people drive less." Taxing gasoline is surely unpopular, and never more so than now when prices are hitting record levels. But "wacky?" In fact, the idea of raising gasoline taxes was praised in 1999 by Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, who is now the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

Mankiw wrote a Fortune magazine piece that carried the headline: "Tax Gas Now!"

Mankiw: Let's cut income taxes by 10% and finance it with a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax. . . .

Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.

You can read Mankiw's full article here , on his Harvard website.

Overestimating the Cost

The Bush ad also puts the likely cost of a 50-cent tax increase a bit too high, claiming the "average family" would pay $657 per year. But it based that on some very rough figures from a private website that based its own calculations on a wrong assumption about the total number of households in the U.S.

Here are the accurate figures: The Federal Highway Administration put total gasoline consumption for highway and commercial use at just over 130.7 billion gallons in 2002, the most recent year on record. That figures to just over 358.1 million gallons per day.

And the Census Bureau put the total number of US Households at just under 109.3 million in 2002, also the most recent year for which figures are published.

That figures to just under 3.28 gallons per day per household, which would make a 50-cent increase come to $1.64 per day, or $598 per year .

Not all would be paid at the pump. The figure includes taxes paid on truck fuel, which would be felt in the form of upward pressure on prices of delivered goods.

And the actual figure would be lower to the extent that drivers switched to higher-mileage vehicles or used their vehicles less. Furthermore, advocates of a 50-cent increase call for phasing it in over several years so that the full effects would not be felt immediately. So for many reasons the figure in the Bush ad is an exaggeration, though not a huge one.

Misleading Vote Count

By saying that Kerry "supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times" this ad could give you the idea that Kerry voted for 11 different tax increases, which isn't true. Actually, a close look at the Bush campaign's own count shows that nine of the eleven were about a single increase. Five of those votes came in the manuevering that led to a single 4.3-cent-per-gallon increase in 1993, as part of President Clinton's economic package. Four more votes for "higher" taxes were actually cast against Republican attempts to repeal that same 4.3-cent increase in 1996, 1998 and 2000. (On one of those votes most Republicans voted against repeal, too.) The Bush campaign also counts a vote in 2000 against a proposal to suspend the federal gasoline tax entirely for six months -- which left gasoline taxes unchanged, not "higher." The 11th instance cited by the Bush campaign wasn't a vote at all -- just that Kerry quote from 1994 that he'd once supported a 50-cent increase.

axiombiological
04-18-2004, 12:08 AM
LOL...it is so amusing to see two morons fight each other.

The article attempted to validate Kerry's retarded idea of a $0.50 tax on gas, by using flawed reasoning, regardless of who supported it. It attempted to claim that such a tax would benefit society so much, what with reduced driving, lower deaths, reduced congestion and pollution, etc. So, the author attempts to claim that by increasing the cost of driving, somehow the neglected reality of increased costs of transportable goods and services is "good" for the citizen. Not to mention, the fact that if such a tax would have been in place, the current gas prices would be easily $3.00 average...sounds very good for the consumer. It neglected to mention that pollution levels are declining in the US, without the need to penalize commuters.

Bush is guilty of his own economic sins too. They are both statists, they love the power of government.