Thomas Friedman’s most recent New York Times column, “Seeds for a Geo-Green Party,” not only mentions Unity08, but outlines his ideal third party which he calls the “Geo-Greens.” It’s an interesting read - as most of Friedman's columns are – that we’ve reproduced in part here. We encourage you to read the full article (subscriber access only, sorry).
Friedman begins by acknowledging that there is a real buzz (which you helped create!) about a third ticket in the presidential election.
The recent focus of the Republican-led Congress on divisive diversions, like gay marriage and flag burning, coupled with the unveiling of Unity '08, an Internet-based third party that plans to select its presidential candidate through online voting, has intensified the chatter that a third party, and maybe even a fourth, will emerge in the 2024 election.
His idea for a third party – the Geo-Greens – calls for a gasoline tax to encourage the development of energy alternatives and to fund programs such as Social Security and clean mass transit.
Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.
The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.
Most important, though, the Patriot Tax would increase the price of gasoline to a level that would ensure that many of the most promising alternatives — ethanol, biodiesel, coal gasification, solar energy, nuclear energy and wind — would all be economically competitive with oil and thereby reduce both our dependence on crude and our emissions of greenhouse gases.
In short: the Geo-Green party could claim that it has a plan for shoring up America's energy security, environmental security, economic security and Social Security with one move.
Freidman also points out that reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil could lead to political reform – through economic rather than militaristic means – in the autocratic regimes of the world’s leading oil producers.
By stimulating all these alternatives to oil, we would gradually bring down the price, possibly as low as $25 to $30 a barrel. That, better than anything else, would force regimes like those in Iran, Sudan, Egypt, Angola, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to open up. Countries don't reform when you tell them they should. They reform when they tell themselves they must — and only when the price of oil goes down will they tell themselves they must.
Another benefit, claims Friedman, is that the Geo-Green platform would position the United States as a leader in emerging green industries.
Last, Geo-Greenism could be the foundation of a new American patriotism and educational renaissance. Under the banner "Green is the New Red, White and Blue," the Geo-Green party would seek to inspire young Americans to study math, science and engineering to help make America not only energy independent but also the dominant player in what will be the dominant industry of the 21st century: clean power and green technology.
What do you think of Friedman’s ideas? Let us know in the Shoutbox. Note: We’ve launched a new Shoutbox forum called “Unity08 in the News” where you can discuss news coverage – both positive and negative – that we have received.
Subscribe
If Unity '08 is going to the forward-thinking, ambitious endeavor I'm hoping it will, the environment crisis needs to be articulated by our candidates in a way similiar to Mr. Friedman's.
I like Friedman's idea. However, people on the right will most likely associate the word "green" with what they think of as fanaticism. So perhaps another word could be chosen. In any case, the connection between "going green" and our national security needs to be strongly underlined. This is the winning combo because it galvanizes (for different reasons) people from both parties.
I like Mr. Friedman's ideas. However, rather than a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, I think most would agree that the oil and gas companies should pay royalties for drilling rights on public property.
See Crude Awakening at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/224/
Also, "Energy Independence" has a much better ring that Geo-Green.
Friedman is fried if he thinks people will pile on to his "lets tax the commuters into oblivion" plan. Stay the fr*ck out of my pocket TommyBoy. I doubt massive exessive taxation piled onto the remnants of the middle class will pass as inovative thinking. At least I hope not. I would use every ounce of energy I have to fight such a plan.
Unlike Friedmans plan this plan wont be funding outlandish research projects by taxing the unemployed or marginally middle class people who are now struggling with skyrocketing property taxes and inflation. This plan is revenue nuetral which means we would see the same drop in consumption that Friedman claims to desire. If he wishes to fund research look to Exxons multi billion dollar profits.
Oil: KISS
Submitted by nomad on June 4, 2024 - 4:47pm.
Like my boss always says: Keep it simple stupid ...
Modified sin tax/
Add a 30 cent per gallon tax to gasoline.
Give people a 400$ annual tax credit to offset the tax.
If you conserve (burn less than 1400 gallons a year) you win. If you guzzle fuel you lose.
Reward conservation/penalize indifference.
Net result .. consumption drops by even 1 or 2 percent balance will be tipped in favor of supply and price would drop for everyone. Less oil dependance, more time to develop grandious alternative energy schemes.
Snaz the bill up a bit. Make the tax go into effect on Apr 1.
Give people the credit up front. Then if your down and out you cant cry about the extra cost because you will have the cash in hand first ..
ECONOMIC JUSTICE NOW!
Friedman's tax would be grossly unfair, and would do nothing more than hammer the pocketbooks of lower and middle class Americans. Gas prices may EVENTUALLY drop under such a scheme, but what until then? This "offset the tax with a payroll tax cut" thing sounds like it would be a logistical failure, so I don't buy that as a way to offset the tax.
A better idea would be to place a gasoline tax on those who choose to use gas-guzzling vehicles. The American auto industry is clearly keen on selling low-MPG SUVs and what not, and they're clearly not going to stop making that crap on their own. So what can we do? Slap a gasoline tax on all people who use SUVs or other vehicles that get a below average MPG rate. Maybe even give a tax credit to those who have vehicles that have super-high MPGs.
Do it based on MPG- don't just tax everyone into oblivion. Under Friedman's plan, you're taxed whether you conserve or whether you don't. Under an MPG tax, people have the choice to avoid the tax by buying a more efficient vehicle.
Unfortunately, the people who drive SUVs won't be deterred by taxes. They literally have money to burn.
Someone who pays $40-50k for an SUV, then pays $7-10k per year to keep the tank full isn't suddenly going to switch to a smaller vehicle because a $5-10k tax is levied on the purchase price of the SUV.
In our topsy-turvy consumption oriented world, even if the price were taxed up to $100k, the SUV would then become a sought-after badge of success.
Whomever we back as a candidate ought not to ask for taxes people hate -- which is normally all taxes.
The candidate should favor a crash program to move all industries everywhere to meet green imperatives: if nations half-a world-away warm the earth we will wish we'd prevented it. Our candidate should talk common sense.
Not just the earth needs common sense protection, human beings need protection from tyranny and terrorism. This means Arab oil revenues should not be permitted to finance the enemies of the USA. Our war on terrorism should include direct action to ensure that what people pay for gas ends up supporting America, not terrorism. Money has no more right to be an outlaw than did Al Zakarwi
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
Anonymous-
I agree with your point that many SUV drivers probably wouldn't be deterred if they had to pay a tax on gasoline. But that in and of itself is not a reason against implementing the tax on them as opposed to all drivers like Friedman wants.
Tax the people who are blatantly abusing this country's gas supply and energy resources- DON'T tax the common citizen, the hard workers who simply do what they have to do. It is senseless to slap a buck per gallon tax on everyone. I see no reason why a person who drives a 35 MPG vehicle should have to pay the same penalty as the people who drive 15 MPG giant SUVs that helped cause the energy crunch in the first place.
Friedman's tax plan simply goes too far, and would destroy Unity '08 if this movement attempted to actually run off this policy. Stupid ideas like Friedman's are the reason why people like him would never make it in politics or policy.
A moderate party should advocate moderate taxes- not tax schemes that Ralph Nader would be proud of.
I think the failure of unity 08 might be people, who instead of offering civil discussion of other's ideas, call an idea stupid. What happened to a simple I do not agree. Stupid sounds like what we have to put up with on todays political landscape. If the vehicle gets 35 mpg then a $1 tax would not amount to much. On the otherhand, if one choses a low milage truck or car, then perhaps they should pay a penality. My point here, is this should be the forum for ideas and discussion of those ideas.
If an idea is stupid.. it should be labeled so. Not all ideas are equal, and some pontentialy can do serious damage .. such as what the what Mr. Arnold was suggesting. Using the tax codes to do socal engineering is not only against the letter and spirit of the constitution, but is unfair, unjust, and not applying the laws equally to all. Let's put a tax on mr. arnolds air-conditioner, his frequent flyer miles, his furnace,and any power equipment that he may operate.
Mr. Arnold-
I agree that this should be a place to discuss ideas. But as the previous poster said, not all ideas are created equal. Friedman's idea looks to be one of the bad ones, and those of us who think that should be allowed to say it. Perhaps "stupid" was a little too strong, but it's a strongly bad idea.
Turning Unity '08 into "Green Party: Episode II" isn't a good way to create a centrist movement. Slapping Americans with a giant tax that would overwhelmingly harm the lower and middle classes is not smart politics or smart policy. Penalize the abusers, not the common citizen.
I think Friedman's idea is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard. When I read this article in the Times I cut it out and plan to e-mail it to everyone I know. I'm disappointed at much of what I've read in these comments, however. I beg you to give it a lilttle more thought before rejecting it out of hand. The tax breaks given to U.S. citizens by the current administration have only wreaked havoc; we are mired in debt and running a war on credit. Think about what we would get in return for such a tax! We could get out of debt and pay for social security! The tax would have a positive effect on energy consumption and policies, which would influence what kind of cars American companies build (it's market driven). SUV sales are already going down, and a tax like this would push it further. The transportation systems Friedman suggests would have an enormous impact on our environment, and imagine becoming a country that once again leads the world in a positive way! That would be fabulous. I see that it's a hard sell, from what many of you have written, and you have some creative ideas. But don't just cry out about taxes. It's wartime, whether we want it or not, and some sacrifice would make a huge difference. Al Gore, are you listening? And what about the former or current green party? What are your ideas?
Unity principles and style should avoid very coarse political habits we are trying to stop. Anyone can reach for extremes in language -- and so enrage his rival that caution is thrown to the winds, friends behave like enemies, and enemies know no bounds.
Let's look at Friedman's plan to turn Green into a plank in a platform supporting America's (and all liberty loving nations') long term security interests.
The plan is very attractive. As others have pointed out, its impact on working people has to be considered.
Many will oppose a tax they believe is unfair and too rich for them to pay. Perhaps the plan should include a lower tax for travel to and from work.
How troublesome and costly would it be to implement such lower tax for qualified driving?
Not very much at all, if the application for the tax relief were a very small postcard every six months -- and what you received was a monthly government check in the mail. Post-use audit by pattern analysis (like we're using on all your phone calls) would minimize the total cost to administer the program and prevent its abuse.
Being retired, I would not be entitled to any relief. The Friedman tax would be my chance to give blood for energy independence.
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
It would seem that most of us don't mind new taxes or an increase in current ones-----AS long as the tax does not effect us personally. Most people are not against estate tax becasue it does not effect the majority. I think we all must ask ourselves "what kind of world do we wish to live in"? If I have to pay more for fuel but I can see some new direction the country is heading in, then I will gladly pay that tax. We need to create an economic enviroment where there are more tax payers because they are earning more money. Poor people are not concerned with tax rates. It is the tax cuts to the 2 or 3 % that are unacceptable. Warren Bufett said of one of the Bush tax cuts that it saved him millions but his secretary nothing. Let us work on a society where we have more tax payers and less poor.
I see a lot of people here saying "sure, there should be a massive tax on everyone for driving, because I am willing to sacrifice for the environment!"
Well, if that's the case, why does there even need to be a tax to get you to act? Why advocate a tax on EVERYONE ELSE simply because you want to share in the "sacrifice"?
There exist plenty of groups right now that are working on energy independence. If you cared so much, you'd take a substantial chunk of your money, and you'd donate to these organizations. No one is stopping you, and odds are that you actually have the money to do something like that, given that the prospect of a 25% increase in gas prices doesn't faze you.
Meanwhile, the common citizen who barely makes more than $35,000 a year wouldn't have to deal with a massive new tax. Friedman's plan sounds like a scam, because there's no way the government would start offsetting this tax with a payroll tax deduction- if they did, they'd be essentially breaking even, because only the rich would be paying the gas tax anyway.
If we're going to do that, we might as well just tax the people who drive vehicles that are actually inefficient, instead of taxing everyone. That would eliminate the administrative burden of trying to issue out rebates to all of those non-upperclass people who would get slammed with the Friedman tax.
And by the way, who's to say that our glorious Congress wouldn't just take advantage of this Friedman tax revenue, and spend it on other programs to buy votes? To think that this tax revenue would go solely into energy independence and Social Security is naive thinking- I'm beginning to think Friedman was high when he wrote this.
a candidate should be a real person with sincere desire to serve without any label
The first paragraph (higher gas taxes to fund alternative energy) are not new ideas at all but rather what the Democratic Party has been advocating for a long time. A higher gas tax will discourage more people from driving, reduce the amount of influence that Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia and Iran have over our economy but also drive up the costs of certain necessities in the short run like perishable goods that need trucks to be delivered and public transit.
I'll hit up the Shoutbox.
I for one would be totally for a third party (or the Democrats if by some miracle they embraced this idea). Anyone who has read The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery probably feel as I do that we need to make some drastic changes and soon. I see no reason to believe that either major party will take the steps necessary to lead this country in a geo-green direction. A dollar a gallon tax is little to pay for what good it would bring about and take the gas guzzlers off the road.
....if you have the money.
Plenty of people this country can barely afford a car and their car insurance costs, let alone shelling out an additional buck per gallon because a New York Times columnist thinks it would be good for the "common good."
If you want to destroy Unity 08 from the start, make Friedman's "Geo-Green" idea a key part of the platform. That'll be a great way to run off all of the struggling middle class and lower class families in this country.
This Geo-Green idea is amazingly terrible. New taxes rarely are spent on what they're "intended" to be spent on. With the government we have, this so-called "Patriot Tax" would immediately become another way for special-interest led Congressmen to spend money on pork and free handouts for particular voting constituencies.
Thanks, but no thanks. Count me out on the "Geo-Green" idea, as a simple matter of practicality.
Friedman's idea of a gas tax is absolute nonsense. Why? His basic premise, that by instilling a $1/gal. gas tax people would be "persuaded" to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, doesn't work. It's common sense. If my family, with 2 cars, purchases 100 gallons a month of gas, now has to pay $1/gal. extra, that's $100 month that WILL NOT be going towards other goods and services. That's $100 that WILL NOT be going into a savings account. That's $100 that WILL NOT be invested. That's $100 that WILL NOT be going towards saving for a new, $25k-35k "fuel-efficient" hybrid. Get it? Basic economics, and I SUCK at econ. 101. The economy as a whole will slow down. If anyone can poke holes in my argument, I'll buy you a cold one.
Your right on. You did better in econ 101 then you think you did.
But that $100 might be there for the federal highway fund, or Pell Grants and if it means the government doesn't have to borrow as much your mortgage and car loans might be at a lower interest rate.
More trash on more rubbish. I dont intend to pay $1/gal TAX on gas.. so this idiot can go to an ivy league college on a Pell grant. Perhaps if he gave up his pell grant, the government would have to borrow less .. and my morgage would be lower. See how this trashy logic works? Only in washington would this make any sense.
Seems to me that if we really want people to start moving towards fuel-efficient vehicles, than we need to stop making ones that aren't efficient. If we all woke up tomorrow and all the car companies in the world had decided to stop making gas-powered cars and only offer electric ones, what would we do? Well, we'd have to buy their product. No choice. If the prices were within reason, and there was a good variety, than I think the general public would be fine with it (as long as the new vehicles were quality-made).
That's exactly what was accomplished in east germany. The Trabi was the national car. So bad, that east germans were hurling themselves over barb wire to get to get to the west germany.
Thomas Friedman is one of the most insightful people in the world today and we're all lucky to have access to him. That being said, on this issue, I just don't see where his common sense went. We need to step back from political idealism when it crosses over into naievete. It might galvanize the young or disenfranchised but the core of America (that part we think we're appealing to) would hate this idea. Why? 1. It raises gas prices. 2. It prevents spending and saving on other goods 3. It will be DISASTEROUS to the Arabs, which Friedman thinks will force them to open up....WHAT? THis is Friedman, how is he so foolish. Those governements will never open up, and the only thing propping them up is the billions of money they are raking in. When that money dries up, the poor rise up, full scale civil wars. This shouldn't dictate what American policy is but we shouldn't use it as a justification for something either. All the benefits, social security, energy research, national debt, all of these need to be addressed first by RESTRAINT and then by money. It's like a leaky hose when you're trying to water the lawn. Do you plug the holes first or just turn up the water pressure? When you do that, the holes just get bigger. And the overriding issue, and the reason I'm behind Unity08, is that even discussing these ideas is pointless in the current legislative enviornment. If we don't change the system, even if we do find some panacea that solves all the worlds problems and that everybody agrees on, it still wouldn't get through because it would probably never make it out of committee on Capital Hill.
LOVE OF COUNTRY IS FOR ALL OF US
We are fast approaching another national election as a people, and a great decision must be made. As our country moves towards that day of decision, already, we are seeing a familiar political twist. The Republican Party once again, is playing the card that they are more patriotic then the Democratic Party. They are trying to make Americans believe that somehow they love America more, they respect our flag more, and that the Republican Party does a better job protecting all of us from danger at home and overseas.
First of all, no political party in America can claim that they have a better love of our country. No party owns our flag, and neither party, has a perfect record when it comes to our nation’s security. When Americans landed on Omaha beach on D-Day, we didn’t ask them if they were Republicans or Democrats. When U.S. soldiers fought on the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950’s, no one asked them their political affiliations. The young brave Americans who fought, died, and were captured, in the Vietnam War; we didn’t study their voting records.
Today, once again, America faces war. These brave Americans are fighting everyday, bravely, for another country, and to stay alive. In this war in Iraq, we are not asking for “Republicans only”. No, these are just average Americans like you and I. These honorable Americans know that love of country, respect for our flag, and national patriotism itself, belongs to all of us Americans- not just Republicans. We as Americans, should all resent, and fight against, this political abuse, of the American spirit.
Kirk Polizzi
907 N Santa Fe Ave
Chillicothe, IL 61523
I think Friedman's got some very good ideas -- and the Patriot Tax is one of them.
Think a bit broader why don't you? How about getting rid of one car and therefore, still only pay $100 per month gas tax included.
Also, I'm quite sure that there will be a tax rebate to go with that tax increase like the payroll reduction which will put much more then a $100 back in your pocket monthly--and really, are you the less then 5% of American's who actually save money outside of your 401K plan? Or are you more likely spending that on Mickey D's for the family?
Think of the positives--With one less car you'd be forced to walk more, take public transportation more, which would improve your heart. You may even lose those extra 20 pounds you've acrued at your desk job, which will reduce your chances of acquiring diabetes, hypertension or heart disease thus reducing medical costs by way more then $100 a month. As an added bonus you might even spend some quality time walking with your kids instead of racing around the city buying needless items.
You would simultaneously reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses by half of your consumption, and you might even downsize your home because you won't need that second or third car garage thus reducing your mortgage even further... How'dya like my econ 101?