This country desperately needs better gas mileage. -Arch-Conservative, Charles Krauthammer, railing about those who fail to see "tradeoffs" (a.k.a. "liberals").
Stagger back. Did we actually see the Right run a flag up that we need better mpg? Finally, the correct diagnosis! (30 years in the making, since Carter, and a $2 Trillion dollar quagmire-war later - see sidebar - ..., but who's checking your "fail to see"?) What we need aren't people who see tradeoffs, but those who can properly diagnose a problem (a.k.a. "liberals").
But it does not come free. - ditto
Boggle. Of course it does. Existing technology supports it. We don't even have to appeal to innovation, to future technology improvements - you know, Bush's "Technology Now!" campaign to solve all our energy woes.
And, look, my 'revenue neutral' demand appears to have currency with the Pigou Club cul-de-sac Mavens over at G-Mankiw's blog (they'll apparently compromise most anything as a first step toward full-out Pigovianism?):
The most efficient and equitable way to both increase mileage and reduce gasoline use (increased mileage alone can induce people, perversely, to drive more) is with a new gasoline tax, refunded by means of reduced payroll taxes to make it revenue neutral. -ditto
But, sadly, the man who calls for everyone to see tradeoffs proposes a false one. We could have *both* CAFE improvements AND Pigou. Given the history of how the gas tax started as a dedicated tax and then got purloined by Congress, I'll vote CAFE first and whatever Pigovian, revenue neutral you can muster, after ... (Besides, you had all the branches of government to do it, but chose repeal of inheritance taxes instead. Oooo, Our Hero!)
