Green Party’s solution to the high oil prices and oil dependence
Green Party candidates like Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay, and Katherine “Kat” Swift offer positive solutions.The British are paying $8 dollars a gallon for gas. Goldman Sachs predicts Americans will be paying $6 a gallon next year.
Green Party candidates positive solutions. “More Trains, Less Traffic”. Build modern high speed rail across America. New High Speed rail in the intersate corridors, and light rail in communities to cut dependance on foreign oil in half. Stop wanton waste of $1 Trillion tax dollars on foriegn military misadventure. Stop the deficit spending that has brought a weaking dollar, and inflated prices. Seek political solutions for political problems. Use tax savings to balance annual $3.1 trillion federal budget, pay off $9.4 Trillion federal debt, install auditable accounting system at pentagon. Build rail with tax savings.
Kent Mesplay, ” Cut out tax payer funded oil, auto, aspault subsidies”.
Columist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this week. “Tax the damn thing.”
“Why have the extra $2 dollars (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gas tax.” To pay off the federal debt and strengthen the U.S. economy. Force conservation.
Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S.auto fleet, change driving habits, and hugely reduce U.S. oil demand and bring down world oil prices .. the American consumer and American economy reap all the benefits”.
Don’t know if the spelling mistakes are in the original press release but I’d hope not. Couldn’t find this release on their website so I’m not sure of the source. I’m interested in the economic theory behind this along with the constitutional validation. I have a feeling the former would be overly simplistic and the latter based on the fallacious living document theory. I’m not entirely sure I understand the tax floor at $4/gallon of gas. Does that mean if prices drop the tax will become a greater percentage or the retail price? Does that imply that they will raise the tax as the gas price increases in order to at least keep the percentage the same? How will this light rail work in the nonmetropolitian areas where at least 1/6th of the population lives in? I know that where I grew up buses and light rail would be almost completely useless. Where is the justification for taxing those individuals who happen to live in rural areas where these services won’t ever reach? Will anyone acknowledge that the unconstitutional interstate highway system very likely was a major component of our current situation? Are the people advocating this claimed solution claiming that this government intervention will be different because it’d be done “right” by the “correct” people unlike the very consistent string of “wrong” individuals prior? What do they propose to do for those who couldn’t afford artificially inflated $6/gallon gasoline?
Related posts:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The price floor/taxing thing confuses me. The address the problem of people in rural areas not being met by these services. I think we need to shift to more localized economies if we truly hope to save gas. If the price gets high enough people will live close to where they work and buy goods and services from people near them. That or become more self sufficient. <sarcasm>Either way it turns out the trends that I have been attempting to initiate are obviously the best way of doing things and the way people would turn to in the future.</sarcasm>
June 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
NY Times link of the week. (Though I’ll admit to only skimming the article and really looking at the map.) I think bosco is right, without a cheap means of transportation, a lot of recent housing development isn’t going to make sense. Driving 30+ miles to work on $5+ gas changes the math for lots of commuters. On the other hand, how well does light rail work even with $4 gas? Good luck adding service to established population centers without resorting to massive eminent domain.
On the food front, I’d welcome a return to more seasonal eating. For example, Edible Boston – Cooking Fresh (Spring). I’m not sure if I subscribe to their assertion that "nature did not intend us to eat whatever we want, whenever we want it," but I can see the market leading people to following their general behavior. So bosco get crackin’ on that blog-of-bile-apartment-community-co-op-garden post haste!
June 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
On the subject of seasonal eating, I’ve got a farmers market down the street from my house that I love. It makes sense to have it down the road because the food doesn’t last as long and I don’t have to burn any gas to get it. Also you can talk to the people who grow the food AT LENGTH about what adjectives like "organic", "natural" and "sustainable" actually mean when referencing food.
As far as the community garden, I’m currently growing beans and doing a piss-poor job of it. I’m doing alright with Aloe, "Lucky Bamboo" and a tropical bonzai. I’m also really good at growing algae in my watering jug. I’m hoping to build some planters and start growing more useful stuff. Too bad I can’t grow America’s largest cash crop and subsidize all my
wacky ideascliche escapades.June 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/...
bosco, you aren’t trying hard enough.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
What’s the difference between the blue and the red dots? Are the blue businesses not benefiting from the farm subsidy?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Note the text vertical on either side of the circle.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:17 am
That’s a good point. Maybe I could collect a farm subsidy for growing a bean plant. I’m already considering asking the USDA for some bamboo rhizomes.