printHowever you slice it, what you have in Charles Krauthammer is a crypto-leftist. Here he proposes an elaborate tax scheme to shape consumer conduct. After all, that’s why we have know-it-alls like Krauthammer—to lead us toward the light:
[BLOVIATION BEGINS]
“Here is how it works. The simultaneous enactment of two measures: A $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax–together with an immediate $14 a week reduction of the FICA tax. Indeed, that reduction in payroll tax should go into effect the preceding week, so that the upside of the swap (the cash from the payroll tax rebate) is in hand even before the downside (the tax) kicks in.
The math is simple. The average American buys roughly 14 gallons of gasoline a week. The $1 gas tax takes $14 out of his pocket. The reduction in payroll tax puts it right back. The average driver comes out even, and the government makes nothing on the transaction. (There are, of course, more drivers than workers–203 million vs. 163 million. The 10 million unemployed would receive the extra $14 in their unemployment insurance checks. And the elderly who drive–there are 30 million licensed drivers over 65–would receive it with their Social Security payments.)
Revenue neutrality is essential. No money is taken out of the economy. Washington doesn’t get fatter. Nor does it get leaner. It is simply a transfer agent moving money from one activity (gasoline purchasing) to another (employment) with zero net revenue for the government. …”
[SNIP]
Incentivizing good behavior (“drive less and shift to fuel-efficient cars”), and penalizing bad is in the purview of the big, overweening neoconservative government. This has been the Bush mandate. And it’s of a piece with Obama’s impetus.
Hear it straight from the ass’s mouth: “The whole idea is to reward those who drive less and to disadvantage those who drive more. … we support such incentives because … Decreased oil consumption is a … desirable national good.”
Who is this Royal “We” you speak of, Krauthammer, you statist?
Inoculate yourself against the gaseous one with “The Goods On Gas.”
The only preferable part of excise taxes are: (a) they can be avoided in part by changing behavior patterns – e.g. smoke less or drive less and (b) they don’t involve too much governmental monitoring. But this is like stating that a cold is better than pneumonia. What is unstated is why the government should have money in the first place since the government should exist MERELY to assure our rights, and NOT to manage our behavior. Perhaps tax A is better than tax B. Arguably, tax C is most certainly better than war D (if “war D” is being fought “for oil”) but underlying these debates is the assumption that we are all pawns of the all-knowing government. {Given that assumption, Krauthammer’s statist logic is quite reasonable.}
Wonder what Mr. Krauthammer has in mind for the proposed Cow and Pig Gas Tax. Or might that have been his idea?