QWANZ

As a means of promoting energy conservation, Mr. Akerson told the Detroit News, a higher tax would be far more cost-effective than the byzantine fuel-efficiency regulations we have now. This recommendation was a clear violation of well-established political rules, and the anti-tax referees promptly whistled Mr. Akerson for a flagrant foul. “Ridiculous,” fumed Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty....   >>>

As a means of promoting energy conservation, Mr. Akerson told the Detroit News, a higher tax would be far more cost-effective than the byzantine fuel-efficiency regulations we have now. This recommendation was a clear violation of well-established political rules, and the anti-tax referees promptly whistled Mr. Akerson for a flagrant foul. “Ridiculous,” fumed Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty.







The head of a taxpayer-supported but profit-pursuing enterprise may not be the ideal spokesman for higher taxes. But that's hardly a substantive objection. And in substantive terms, Mr. Akerson is 100 percent correct. Properly designed, a substantial increase in the federal gas tax would accomplish widely supported public policy goals more fairly and at less cost than the current alternatives.



Want to reduce the burden of debt on our children and grandchildren? The Congressional Budget Office says that a mere 25-cent increase in gas taxes would cut the federal deficit by more than $291 billion over the next 10 years. Remember: The federal gas tax has remained constant at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993 (and has therefore been declining for almost two decades, in real terms). So to some extent an increase would be equivalent to repealing an expensive tax cut.