The problem with ideology is, it leads you to hate people you've never met and think you can solve problems you don't understand.
Even bad ideology will sometimes coincide with the facts, and even successful ideologies will fail to reckon with reality. But no matter, you press forward. Among the "Soldiers of Heaven" who attacked Najaf last weekend, I wonder how many began to question whether it was a good idea to go into battle bound together at the ankles. Probably not many. It's easy to slip on the shackles once you've locked down the mind.
But we don't require shuffling Sunni combatants to observe denial on parade. It will unfold quite nicely here at home as politicians try to make energy and environmental policy without involving the T-word, unless "tax" is followed by "break." Heaven forbid it should be preceded by the word "gas."
We've heard the Minnesota House Minority Leader on how a 10-cent per gallon increase is unconscionably large. We've heard failed U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kennedy propose to suspend the gas tax as part of his plan [now taken down along with his campaign site] to reduce dependence on foreign oil. We've heard silence from the President — not just on the topic of a gas tax, but on the whole subject of energy conservation.
But there's a rising, diverse chorus of voices saying now is the time. They range from Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw's 10 cents per year for 10 years to MIT Mechanic Ray Magliozzi's graduated tax of 50 cents a year for six years. Alan Greenspan joined Thomas Friedman in supporting a gas tax. Libertarian columnist Steve Chapman agrees with conservative Charles Krauthammer. Minnesota GOP Rep. Ron Erhardt and Democratic Sen. Steve Murphy will make a push in the state legislature.
The basic argument is we need stronger incentives to reduce pollution and oil dependence. Mileage standards and switch grass ethanol will do neither. Dig into the links for more.
Large, knee-jerk tax aversion isn't the only barrier to implementing a gas tax, of course. The other is political pragmatism.
Economist Russell Roberts, who strikes me as one of the more clear-eyed conservatives, has no problem with the theory behind arguments for raising gas tax. His objections arise "with how such a proposal is implemented when the political process gets a hold of it. ... [I]t strikes me as naive to encourage government to solve the pollution problem via a gasoline tax if you know that the level of the tax will be set wrong and that the money will be badly spent."
John Kerry declined to support a gas tax increase in his run for President. It would be very interesting to see a 2008 candidate use a robust gas tax proposal to differentiate him/herself. But will running on a gas ever happen before the nation starts running on empty?
