i seem to have strayed way off point on the last post about the gas tax holiday.
let's be clear here: i'm not saying that saving money is not a worthy cause to me. i'm not saying that saving $1 is not a worthy cause to me. hell, i'm not even saying that saying 18.4 *cents* is not a worthy cause to me. i don't buy clothes when they're not on sale. i have trouble throwing something away if there's even a sliver of possibility that i could ever want to use it again. i am a natural bargain hunter, and i don't think i could ever change that.
all of my favorite shirts were purchased for under $5. a couple of them were purchased for $2. my favorite pair of jeans, ever, were $5. i wore them until the hole at the corner of the butt pocket was so large i couldn't ignore the fact that people could see my underwear anymore. i still haven't thrown away those jeans. i could salvage the material and make something else out of them! let's face it: i'm asian, and it's probably somewhere in my blood. but the trade-off here is just not worth it to me.
the point isn't how little we'd actually save if the plan actually worked. the main point is that clinton's plan (the one that entails big oil reimbursing the federal government for the lost revenue of suspending the gas tax) won't work, since they can just pass the charge along to the consumer (they are, after all, businesses. the purpose of a business is make money).
what it comes down to, is that the problem has nothing to do with this being a "short-term" solution. i love stop-gaps. i think they're wonderful things that sometimes buy us the time to work out a proper, well-planned, thought-out solution (rather than rushing to try to implement the permanent fix NOW and having to revisit the entire problem again later in short order, when your sleep-deprived solution falls apart or bares its shortcomings).
this is not a stop-gap. this is not a short-term fix. both labels imply that the thing will at least
serve the purpose of the eventual long-term solution, if less effectively, less acceptably, or less reliably. or, i suppose, less elegantly.
on the other hand, if we implement the plan without trying to get big oil to pick up the slack (mccain's plan?), who will pay to fill our potholes and reinforce our failing bridges and overpasses? because, in this country, that is generally where the gas tax steps in, is it not?
this one would possibly qualify for the previous labels. unfortunately, for me, it falls in the serves-the-purpose-"less acceptably" column. i'm *not* okay with allowing our interstates to become more dangerous so i can save a few cents per gallon. if i drive into a pothole and damage my car because i wanted to save some money this summer, then i consider that my karmic reward. but if some bridge or overpass on an interstate fails and people die because i wanted to save some money? i don't think i could *ever* be okay with that.
and how many people would even get that connection? or would they just blame the stupid politicians?
and yes, i know that it's unlikely that the suspension of the gas tax will kill somebody. but that's like playing russian roulette with more chambers. yes, it's safer than the original flavor. i'm still not willing to take that risk (and for what?).
***
yes, i realize that, for some people, $5 per paycheck is the difference between scraping by and being homeless. i also know that there are many other factors that can give you $5 per paycheck. or save you $5 per paycheck.
and while i believe that the government should take living conditions of its denizens (not just the citizens) into account when it makes decisions, i also don't believe that it is the government's job to bail you out of a bad situation.
this belief, however, has nothing to do with my opposition to the gas tax holiday (or at least not much). my sticking point is that it's likely ineffective and possibly damaging.
i am not *as* opposed to mccain's proposal as i am to hillary's (though i still am opposed). and i realize that if you substitute "wanted to save my house" for "wanted to save some money" in that paragraph about his plan, the decision becomes much harder to make. that said, i still don't think that you should look to the gas tax (or even the federal government) when you're trying to save your house.
***
one thing i *would* like to see a report on, in terms of gas prices and related issues, is why diesel prices always climb faster and higher than unleaded prices when we're all worried about gas prices. normally, diesel's around the same price as low-grade unleaded. when we're in a gas price "crisis," it's generally around a dollar/gallon more.
i suspect that they're targeting the group of drivers who have no choice about whether or not they're going drive lots of long-distance trips: truck drivers. raising the prices any more on unleaded could lead to greatly reduced consumption (especially now, in vacation season), but doing the same to diesel... the consumption numbers won't take as big of a hit.
maybe i only suspect this because i'm cynical. maybe this isn't the case. but it does seem like basic supply and demand theory, and, like i said, it *is* a business.
most other businesses need to be careful how they treat their customers, so they won't lose them. i don't think the idea applies here.
the dynamic between truckers and fuel suppliers feels like an abusive relationship. how do you get out of an abusive relationship when you need it to put food on your table?
p.s. oh, yeah. the gas tax is higher for diesel, too.
