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.” Click here to read the full column (subscriber access only) or the summary in the Unity08 blog.
Friedman's Geo-Greens would call for a gasoline tax to encourage the development of energy alternatives and to fund programs such as Social Security and clean mass transit. He goes on to explain that reducing our dependence on foreign oil would have economic, environmental and geo-political benefits.
What do you think of Friedman's ideas?
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.
As with any plan, execution will be the key.
- What, exactly, does "earning less than $50,000 a year" mean? The text says "People" but is that individuals? Or families?
According to 2024 census data, the median income for families was just over $50k, meaning about half the households would be exempt, which is ok. If it's individuals, then the number of people paying into the pool is going to be a lot less.
- How will the tax rebate be implemented?
If this turns into some kind of record-keeping morass, it's going to be very unpopular. If the rebate is some kind of flat rebate -- say $1000/yr -- then that's going to be problematic.
- What are the stipulations on those with "unusual driving needs"?
Same problem. Record keeping vs flat rebate added to "who gets to say what's acceptable?"
- How much of the $1/gal tax will be left for energy research after the other allocations?
This tax will only raise something on the order of $75B. That sounds like a lot of money but it's hardly enough for upgrading mass transit in every major American city, and it would take all of it to put a dent in a $7T deficit. We haven't even talked about how much would go into Social Security.
I'm not opposed to this plan, but I'd want to know how this was going to work in a bit more detail before I'd be willing to support it.
I read in the paper today, the mint is thinking of doing away with the penny. After reading the article, it sounds great. It costs 1.4 cents to make a penny and there are over 80 billion pennies made/year. Over 30 billion dollar savings for just doing away with what usually stays in the ash tray of any car, no matter your income. What do we think? Do we let Abe keep the paper, but lose the coin? Doing away with Abes can save a lot of Grants.
Tom Friedman is one of the few political writers today who not only comes up with new ideas but who has actually done the homework that gives those ideas some muscle. The Patriot Tax is brilliant. I think I share with many almost a sense of guilt that our military is bearing the brunt of the war on terrorism. It's about time we folks at home make some kind of sacrifice that demonstrates a sense of solidarity with our troops but also works on the whole problem of energy dependency on oil--a problem at the heart of Middle East politics. Thanks for the opportunity to share ideas.
Unlike Friedmans plan this plan wont be funding outlandish research projects by taxing the unemployed or marginally middle class people who are now struggling with skyrocketing property taxes and inflation. This plan is revenue nuetral which means we would see the same drop in consumption that Friedman claims to desire. If he wishes to fund research look to Exxons multi billion dollar profits.
Oil: KISS
Submitted by nomad on June 4, 2024 - 4:47pm.
Like my boss always says: Keep it simple stupid ...
Modified sin tax/
Add a 30 cent per gallon tax to gasoline.
Give people a 400$ 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!
Lets overlook the obvious that for every dollar you give to government they will spend two.
How does Friedmans "commuter tax" save social security? Well, first off anyone who lives in an urban area that has been lucky enough to have large sums of cash invested into their mass transit systems will never pay one cent. Bravo Mr Friedman. Self Employed, Unemployed? No "payroll deduction" for you... off with your heads assuming you are even silly enough to not understand why that part of the proposal will never actualy make it into an IRS booklet ... Excellent..
And if we also assume that the hundreds of billions that this tax would raise doesnt get merely diverted into more foreign aid packages and bridges to nowhere, why wouldnt we consider investing this windfall into more mass transit for the rest of us who never had the political clout to get so much as a dependable bus route? Lol
Friedman knows darn well none of this money will ever go to social security. Not one cent.
Show me a responsible congress first and then I might consider the possibility of allowing them to bilk me further. We are nowhere near getting there though, are we Mr Friedman?
How daft do you think we are?
PS ... An amazing similarity between the agenda rolling out here and that of the "unity' party that has recieved such nil attention.
Nomad said, "...the hundreds of billions that this tax would raise..."
Um. We burn about 150B gallons of gas in the US a year -- 400M gallons a day. At a dollar a gallon, the incremental revenue is no where NEAR "hundreds of billions."
Assuming that the $50K cut off in the plan refers to household income, that means that half the households in America won't pay the tax .. leaving half of the gas out of the equation and taking it down to $75B a year.
If the program is successful in reducing consumption, the incremental reductions in gas usage due to the forced conservation will drive the amount even lower.
This plan is not going to accumulate hundreds of billions in tax revenues for a very long time. If the plan is to add $1/gal in perpetuity, then I'm going to be un-patriotic.
The name is deliciously ironic, tho. Like we need another "patriot" anything after USA PATRIOT ...
I guess that's what we get from naming missile programs "Peacekeeper" and "Patriot"
Cars must go as we know them today... mass transit must be advanced... and the Southwest desert needs to be drilled for oil... creating jobs and bringing the dollar home... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Friedman may have been the first to identify the connection between oil, defense, the economy, and the environment. This op-ed piece is emblematic of his approach to many problems: gather facts from all interested parties, and then brainstorm pro-active out-of-the-box solutions. Add to these qualities, his political independence, and his deep understanding of realities at home and abroad, and you must conclude that he would be a great candidate for the ticket.
Friedman has it half right. Yes, there needs to be consumption taxation to create incentives to conserve energy and funds for research and development for energy alternatives.
However, Friedman ignores where most of the surplus went and all of the lost revenue from unjust tax cuts.
Until and unless we reintroduce a meaningful progressive income tax on those who make more than $1 million a year - closing loopholes and recovering money unfairly taken from the bottom half and given to the top 1/10 of 1 percent -- Mr. Friedman's ideas won't get it done.
Could you re-name this? Reminds me of the tool used to expand limits on the executive branch.
Pick one, because you can't have both. Oh, you might find support for the tax, but not much of it will be from moderates. Moderates know that we already have enough Federal and state gas taxes.
Let's approach this issue logically and map out the pros and cons first:
Pros -
1.) less pollution
2.) less money going to terrorists
3.) less influence by oil countries over global and US economy
4.) less subsidies to oil companies
5.) more hybrids being sold, less SUVs
6.) encourages real commitment to alternative fuels
Cons
1.) Higher cost of goods
2.) impossible to get public support behind
3.) mass transit will cost more, somewhat defeating the purpose
These are just for starters. Feel free to add your own.
Ok.. we add a $1 tax/gal to gas. You just knocked 20 million working poor into poverty status. But thats ok because the tax and spend among us never cared about the poor anyways except at cocktail parties. so they have to be destitute so you can have fuel to heat/condition your 13 room house and enough jet fuel to travel to who knows where. Gawd, either you havn't analized the unintended consequences or your just plain self-absorbed.
How about we just lower the gas tax, more people will use gas while the supply continues to disappear. Now, we put more money into the terrorists pockets and a real WMD is built to kill us.
Raising the gas tax won't put 20 million into poverty, especially if a real leadership in government figures out alternative methods of transportation (gives tax breaks for using mass transit, tax breaks to car companies to build hybrids, tax increases for vehicles that use more than X gallons to refuel, etc.)
Why not just give the government a date when they must roll out alternative transportation, after which they can raise the gas tax, but only so long as it doesn't put 20 million people into poverty.
Forget about whether is's possible, this is politics. Making big promises in order to get elected is the name of the game. Keeping those promises is secondary.
To quote Arthur dent from "The Hithchiker's Guide to the Galaxy":
"If that's their sales pitch, what must it be like in the complaint department?!"
While I enjoy Tom Friedman's columns and agree on his energy solution for the long run, I don't think a tax idea is a very good one for the movement "out of the chute." At best, it's a VERY tough sell.
A gasoline tax would clearly be regressive, and any attempts to rebate folks out of that reality would be beastly complicated and fraught with endless political wrangling (read: dead in committee). Remember, we're only putting up candidates for Prez & VP in '08. We'd need both chambers of congress to implement the kind of tax that's being proposed here.
Also, look at Europe - which has had very high gas taxes since the 70's. They drive smaller cars than we do and use more mass transit(but Europe is more densely populated). They're certainly not using hydrogen cars or hybrids significantly more than we are in the U.S. Why not? They haven't invested in the R&D.
I think our energy theme should be sub-headed into an overall theme of PUBLIC INVESTMENT. Look at our successful investments of the past: The interstate highway system, the moon shot program. Pell Grants (remember those?) Heck: The Internet! (a deliciously unintended consequence of our proverbial military-industrial complex).
Yes, R&D investment into new energy technolgies can and will reap benefits in the long run. Our government can and should make that investment. But the middle class has sufferred enough in the last 6 years - due to the changing structure of our economy and the already increasing regressivity of the tax system.
Let's sell the sizzle and the steak, but not the bitter pill.
It would be impossible for a third party to do what Friedman wants without a significant role in Congress, something which will be much tougher than getting a President or VP elected.
Energy should be looked at as part of a big picture. Most people forget that energy effects EVERYTHING. How did that apple get to the store? On a truck that runs on gas? How do the trains and buses move? Energy.
Now think about who controls the energy - terrorists who we are forced to do business with despite the fact that they openly hate us and want to kill us and companies like Exxon and Chevron that are treated like royalty by our government, with tax incentives, subsidies and favorable legislation.
feel the beat...he's just a newspaper guy...that's all
This "idea" sure sounds familiar. And I don't think it worked on tobacco either. Please, I already can't afford gasoline. Surely we are smart enough collectively to find a better way to solve the problem.
So impressed by Tom Friedman's "Addicted to Oil" report last night. His ability to make linkages between all parts of the oil-terrorism economy and then make it understandable to the average person is extraordinary. While Friedman may not have the commanding presence that is useful in a chief executive (a.k.a. President), he certainly merits consideration for the Unity 08 VP nomination or in the eventual cabinet. Can you imagine Tom Friedman as Secretary of Energy? Talk about a guy who would get things done in what has long been considered a "second tier" cabinet position.
Enjoyed reading all your thoughtful comments (except poor Ken!)...Hope this is the beginning of a historic movement to take back our government from special interests and fanatics. Keep debating, and keep speaking out for progress on the REAL issues facing our country!
I think Erik's suggestion that Unity08 use the theme Public Investment for legislative efforts to conserve energy and invest in R&D is a great idea, especially since Unity08 seems to be focusing on the presidency and will need to find ways to get the Republicans and Democrats to cooperate on any legislation proposed.
Erik wrote: "I think our energy theme should be sub-headed into an overall theme of PUBLIC INVESTMENT. Look at our successful investments of the past: The interstate highway system, the moon shot program. Pell Grants (remember those?) Heck: The Internet! (a deliciously unintended consequence of our proverbial military-industrial complex)."
I also liked the suggestion of a tax break to buffer the cost of a fuel tax for middle to low-income families. This seems like a simple strategy to encourage conservation (though I realize any modification of fuel cost will reverberate through our economy, penalizing the poor most). Even if such a fuel tax coupled with a tax break doesn't generate revenues sufficient to cover costs of Social Security (as one person suggested), the revenues could still be substantial. The balance between a modest revenue and the incentive for conservation could be enough for Republicans and Democrats in Congress to strike a deal.
Regarding hybrid cars: in Houston they are very popular and in demand (dealers have customers on waiting lists to purchase hybrids!).
And I agree with the need to invest in education. It's a cornerstone of democracy. I do, in fact, remember Pell Grants - my education was financed in part by the social support provided by our government and I'd like to see more kids from blue-collar working class families make it through college. Please don't take the stance that Pell grants and other such programs are a waste of money simply because the system was abused. Corruption is predictable. Oversight is essential and that costs money too.
I agree with TromboneEric (June 19). Friedman's idea is basically good but fatally flawed. We should apply the KISS principal to any policy supported by a Unity08 candidate.
We need to increase the gasoline tax. Leave it at that. There is already a method in place on your income tax return to declare auto mileage not reimbursed by an employer up to 44.5 cents per mile. If the government wants to give a break to people who are required to drive due to their profession it can increase the deductable amount per mile.
Our dependence on foreign oil is not just an upper class thing, although they are the ones driving Hummers to the grocery store. Everyone who drives owns a part of this problem and must participate in the solution.
If you want to sell *sizzle* and not bitter pills to the public show them ways to conserve and save money at the same time. It's time to bring Benjamin Franklin back as a spokesperson for a new way of thinking. Remember *A penny saved is a penny earned*?
To mention raising the gas tax in the context of Ben's saying that "a penny saved is a penny earned" - why it's enough to wake the dead.
Lynn - Thank you for yer support and I agree wholeheartedly with the KISS principle.
Let me piggy-back on your Ben Franklin principle and propose a "differential tax" - a tax that keeps the price of gas constant.
Say the current price of gas is $3.00. If you tax it so the consumer pays $3.75 at the pump, Uncle Sam gets (another) 75 cents per gallon. But if gas goes up to $3.25, the government only gets 50 cents.
But, say the government enacts new CAFE standards for auto makers, funds research for fuel cells and alternative fuel infastructure, and the price of gas goes down to $2.75 Then government would earn a cool buck a gallon.
You now have a built-in incentive for the government to keep energy prices low. (The current system of taxing on a percentage basis is an incentive to keep prices high).
So, a penny saved (by the govt.) would really BE a penny earned.
Okay, Anonymous - you can go back to sleep, now... ;-)
Last June, Tom Friedman proposed that Unity '08 become the "Geo-Green Party" - which piqued my interest (and brought me to Unity '08). But he also proposed an energy tax as our leading issue, which, didn't exactly rev my engine. My reaction at the time: "If that's our sales pitch, what's it going to be like in the complaint department?!"
But after reading Mr. Friedman's OP-Ed piece last Wednesday, Dumb as We Wana Be (subscription required), I got excited again.
Here's the deal:
* We import over 60% of our oil - much of it from rich countries with policies that are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to our interests.
* Brazil is providing 40% of it's transportation energy needs from sugar beet bio-fuels.
* Sugar Beet ethanol gives you an 8 to 1 return on energy to produce it vs. 1.3 to 1 for Corn ethanol.
* Sugar Beets can be economically grown and processed in Africa and other desperately poor countries.
* We tax imported sugar beet ethanol at 51 cents a gallon and also tax imported sugar beets!
Friedman's conclusion: This is monumentally stupid.
BUT it's also a huge opportunity since it cuts across at least 3 of the top 10 issues of our time:
1. National Security (Terrorism)
2. Energy
3. Environment
It also gives Unity '08 an issue we can hit the streets running with.
Brazil instituted this program when it was still a dictatorship. It was an unproven, risky program back then, but they were able to stick with it since they weren't worried about getting re-elected. But now this is proven technology that is not risky at all - for the U.S. government. It is still risky for the auto industry as well as the gasoline distribution industry due to the volatility of energy and commodity prices. This is a classic case of the government needing to intervene to smooth out the short-term economic noise to achieve a long-term economic objective.
What's stopping us from implementing Brazil's program?
1) The high cost of domestic ethanol production.
2) The farm lobby.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a study about a month ago that compared the domestic cost of producing ethanol from corn, sugar beets, and other bio sources. It concluded that corn was cheapest of all to produce in the U.S. (I can't say how/if they factored in the fact that U.S. corn production is heavily subsidized). However, it didn't address the issue of imported ethanol (which, again, we tax the cr-@#$%!p out of to protect our domestic producers).
This is where the wacky world of farm subsidies finally hits head-on with Geo-Politics. It's going to lose. Okay Unity '08ers, it's time we got out in front on this one.
Even if the U.S. government has to subsidize the Ethanol industry, I'd rather send billions to Africa and Brazil than to Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia any day.
***
It's OUR turn to re-invent America!
Visit the Unity '08 Platform Focus project. No programming experience necessary!!
http://unitysupporters.com/wiki/?title=UnityWiki:Community_Portal
Below is 1) A correction, and 2) (as penance) a news link that doesn't require a subscription:
1) Brazil is producing ethanol from sugar cane (NOT beets). Sorry 'bout that.
2) With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs (April 10, 2024).
However, I stand by the general theme of the post below. An energy solution is at hand if common sense can triumph over the farm lobby. (And not just in the States, Europe's farm lobby is even stronger than ours).
The key thing I have found after researching this is that the "return on energy" just isn't there for crops grown outside the tropics. Sugar cane has about a 2% photosynthesis-to-biomass conversion rate. Doesn't seem like much, but it's one of the most efficient in the plant kingdom. That's why you get the 8 to 1 return on energy cited in Friedman's piece, and the article above.
So, sugar beets - grown here in the USofA just doesn't cut it as source of energy. Neither does corn, soybeans, wheat - or just about anything else you grown in the lower 48, (except Florida). Don't buy into the USDA study that says corn ethanol can be produced for a buck a gallon. They didn't account for the heavy subsidies!
So, if we're going to take advantage of this energy source, we're going to have to import ethanol (*gasp!* instead of oil!). And that means taking on the farm lobby. But that's simply National interest winning out over special interest. And THAT'S what America is all about - well should be about.
This is a SLAM DUNK issue for Unity '08.
Park the gas burners in 2 years! Give the people bluebook plus for their cars and immediately stop producing any more gas gusslers... all new cars off the plant floor hybrids! Save the enviornment, stop funding terrorists states and set a proper example for Russia, China, India and the rest of the fools to follow! - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
What news coverage? I have a job, retired but still have to work, have many projects to work on at home(including a extensive Honey Do List) and have little time to extensively listen to talk shows and read a bunch of editorials. I try to listen to the news at 6 and read the crap they serve up on my Internet news, read the papers somewhat and I have heard nothing about our movement. I wonder how much has the rest of this country has heard of us and our leaderless plan to take the White house in 08. Come on let's get real, without publicity and lots of it we are going nowhere. I tried to Google up independent parties on the net and got party after party after party but no Unity08. The two major parties must be laughing there heads off if they are even aware of us. If we don't get our stuff together and get some leadership then we are dead in the water. Lets get our act together and get noticed in a positive way. When people are made aware of us now, do they sense hope and want to join or do they think of us as another bunch of people just sitting around and beating our gums with no action? We have got to show positive movement to give voters hope.
I can't remember now but think it was either Al or Darryel sometime back who was dismissive of the idea of procatively trying to get youngsters invloved. If you/we want some enrgy and pizzaz in this movement we must do just that! It was angry disaffected young people who lent steam to both Nader and Dean in the last go round. They have the most at stake, the enrgy and the tech savvy to take this quickly to the next level. Without them, and absent leadership (duh?) we'll be going nowhere soon.
And, by the way, the notion that we gray haired old farts will articulate the message and the method and have these youngsters act as obedient implementers is a non-starter. They need to be actively invited on board and made full members. If any of us have any sgacity (still in question) we can try to steer them toward pragmatically achieveable goals when they begin wandering youthfully afield, but that's about it.
The youth own the future - let's help them make it a future worth owning.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
I am against this tax simply because it is too high. At .25 cents I would probably support it.
Business don't pay taxes.. Taxes are a cost of doing business , like payroll, health benefits, material, transportation and factored into the price of the goods and services the business provides. The result is that the taxes are paid buy those that buy the goods and services and actually this gets us closer to the way the Framers of the Constitution intended for the federal government to be funded since they originally specified the only funding source to be tariffs on imported goods. Almost everything has some imported component today so this is a form of taxation that no one can avoid but politician's love it because the masses will blame the business for the higher prices even though the cause is the self serving politicians.
========================================
The most heinous of tyrants is the will of the majority.
Any law that causes an injustice to just one person is an unjust law.
Democracy will fail when the masses learn they can vote themselves largess from the public purse.
Author(s) Unknown but written at the dawn of democracy.
These unknown authors had already seen the flaws in "true democracy" and the founders of the U.S.A. wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in an attempt to prevent these misuses of democracy. Unfortunately the US education system has failed miserably in the task of teaching about the reasons our founders specifically wanted to avoid a "true democracy" and guarantee absolute freedom of and from religion.
http://www.blankballot.us/
I think it'd be better to raise corporate taxes on oil companies, given the UNGODLY profits Exxon/Mobil made this year.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Social Security payroll withholdings have skyrocketed since the 1950s right along with government's growth. Coincidence? Not even. So more taxes are not the answer. Less cancerous government is.
We need to adopt a HUGE tax incentive program for installing Honda’s Home Energy Station or other solar/wind/hydrogen home system upon technology readiness: http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/station
Once every American home is independent of oil, coal and nuclear energy, we can build a worldwide power grid and sell our over-abundant electricity to developing nations. It's win-win.
Now, any ideas on what to do with the millions of unused SUV front axles? I vote world-wide nuclear disarmament then future war based not on absolute destruction but at least some mutual benefit: We drop 4wd axles on the Russians and they drop Vodka.
"Just because the sand is red, white & blue doesn’t mean we should stick our head in it."
~doggbone
There are many reasons I disagree with the opening article but the primary one is that if we are going to raise taxes on energy for the supposed purpose of reducing global warming,, then that tax money should only be used to fund alternative energy not to buy votes throught the expansion of welfare and entitlement programs.
Line 3 of my signature applies.
===========================================
The most heinous of tyrants is the will of the majority.
Any law that causes an injustice to just one person is an unjust law.
Democracy will fail when the masses learn they can vote themselves largess from the public purse.
Author(s) Unknown but written at the dawn of democracy.
These unknown authors had already seen the flaws in "true democracy" and the founders of the U.S.A. wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in an attempt to prevent these misuses of democracy. Unfortunately the US education system has failed miserably in the task of teaching about the reasons our founders specifically wanted to avoid a "true democracy" and guarantee absolute freedom of and from religion.
http://www.blankballot.us/
raise federal tax on gasoline to one dollar a gallon. discount the tax for renewables like ethanol. If the fuel contains 85% renewable energy lower the tax to 25 cents. use the income to 1.) fund tax credit vouchers to consumers who buy cars which run on renewable fuels and get at least 40 mpg 2.) match state funding for public transportation 3.) build a high speed rail system which parallels our interstate highway system.
buy meridia
meridia health
meridia mexico
cheap meridia
meridia coupons
does meridia