Most people agree it would be wise to get off the oil addiction. Lots of possibilities are seen here. Jobs in solar/wind technology, cleaner electric and hybrid cars, especially ones like the plug-in Volt where the engine only runs when the battery drains.

But I see more short-term thinking that will have us having a big crisis in the future.

Remember how taxing luxury yachts destroyed the domestic yacht building industry?

Remember how subsidizing corn-based ethanol caused food prices to go up?

How are we going to pay for our roads if we are migrating to using next to no gasoline? Even now the Highway Trust Fund doesn't pay all the costs of highway construction and maintenance (that the fund your federal gas taxes go into).

I'm curious what people in THIS forum think about that.

Let's say we do great things and actually DO end our dependence on foreign oil. Let's say we've cut back gasoline usage by half or more (a Volt with a 40 mile range would mean my commute would be 2/3 all electric and 1/3 running with the generator operating).

Where do we get the money to pay for where these wunder-cars go? Locally it's property taxes and other assessments for local roads, but the problem does exist on the state level as well.

Comments?

Actually, many states, Washington and Oregon are two examples, are already seeing revenue shortfalls from declines in driving, more fuel efficent autos and autos that aren't fueled by petroleum.

Remember the plan in Oregon to put GPS devices on autos and charge drivers a tax based on usage; regardless of the type of fuel your vehicle used. You would pay at the "pump" after the system read your mileage.

I found an older story about it. Maybe someone can update me on what happened with this plan. I find many problems with this plan. Not only is it intrusive and complicated but people can find ways around by driving to neighboring states if they live near a border. I definitly wouldn't want the feds to implement a GPS device on my gas usage.

Washington state has thrown around ideas like tying the gas tax to the Consumer Price Index. I have to study this idea more indepth, but I like what I've read so far about this plan.

An article in a Clark County, Washington, newspaper shows how timely your discussion is djplong.

"In Washington, motorists pay 37.5 cents on each gallon of gas. The money generates the bulk of revenue needed to build and maintain state highways, and it’s a significant source of money for county road projects as well.

"Here’s the problem: Motorists require much less gas than they used to.

"Automobiles are more fuel-efficient, people are driving less and, increasingly, they are driving automobiles that aren’t powered by petroleum at all.

“ 'All of those things add up to the fact that we aren’t going to rely on the gas tax as being the mainstay of the future if we want to maintain, preserve and improve our transportation system,' said Paula Hammond, the state’s transportation secretary.

"A new report compiled for the Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee indicates that the trend could result in a $3.8 billion revenue shortfall by the year 2025 — the horizon of a 16-year financial plan adopted by the Legislature last year. A risk analysis projected the average per-capita gasoline consumption falling from 500 gallons currently to about 425 gallons in 2025.

"The report noted that in the state’s 2009 fiscal year, for the first time ever, total fuel consumption declined from the previous year. Of course, much of that decline is due to the recession and high unemployment rates."

Pennsylvania legislators are debating this as we type. Some want increases in the gas tax and vehicle registration taxes. Others say toll roads.

I don't like new or increased taxes. I would love to be able to take a look at the waste in highway funding on both the local, state and federal levels. Accountability.


Sorry to be so lengthy.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan...on/na-gas-tax4

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/f...w-on-gas-fuel/

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbc...313/-1/NEWSMAP

I can think of two reasons for Americans consuming more energy than others in this world today: (1) commuting and other individual uses of automobiles; and (2) tremendous amounts of energy used to heat and cool our homes.

These are not things that just happened but rather actions we have incentivized. We have made it easy and inexpensive to drive on our daily errands while trains remain difficult to access and significantly more expensive.

This nation has encouraged single-family homes, McMansions and urban sprawl through the deductibility of mortgage interest. These are trends that directly conflict with the goals of energy saving.

We can do something about these things.

• Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for single-family homes while maintain it for condominiums, in multi-unit structures.
• Impose increasingly painful taxes for large home sites making it less desirable to own a one or more acre lot.
• Encourage the development of golf cart communities concentrating residence, work, shopping and recreation within the community.
• Start building passenger rail systems between and within urban areas. Those of you who have visited London know it is faster, easier and less expensive to take the train rather than a cab into the city. Fund these with taxes on oil powered personal transportation.
• Follow Pickens’s idea and power the big trucks with natural gas rather than diesel.

As we shift more to electrical transportation, we must decide how to generate the electricity. Today, electricity generation in significant amounts can be done through waterpower or steam driven turbines. The steam can be created with fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Dams have already been built virtually wherever possible. To reduce our dependence on oil for power generation, we must increase both coal and nuclear power generation.

Work should continue to make wind power, solar, geothermal, etc. cost-effective sources of energy. They are not there today and probably will not be for at least another decade. Let’s not pretend that these technologies can compete without massive subsidies. Shifting to them today will make true President Obama’s statement that, …”Utility bills will necessarily skyrocket.”

If you are really open to a discussion about this topic, take a look at this article in Forbes. Here is part of it, the rest is available at the link below: "In 1949 nearly 91% of America's total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables.

"Given the raging hype over renewable energy sources, those numbers, which are readily available from the Energy Information Administration, are remarkable. Over the past six decades tens of billions of dollars have been spent on renewable and alternative energy schemes such as wind energy, solar energy, corn and other biofuels, and electric cars. All have aimed at cutting our hydrocarbon use. And yet only nuclear power, which went from zero to about 8.5% of the U.S. primary energy over that time frame, has managed to steal significant market share from coal, oil and natural gas.

"In other words, despite these huge investments, renewables' share of the energy market has been shrinking. What's happening? While conspiracy theorists may want to believe that Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Nuclear are stifling the growth of renewables, the simple truth is that coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear can satisfy the Four Imperatives: power density, energy density, cost and scale."



http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/ren...ert-bryce.html

Well, if you're starting in 1949, things like solar and wind didn't really get ANY traction until the mid 1970s. Even then solar was still too expensive and only now has it started to get more affordable (if you're upper-middle-income and above). Combine that with THREE DOLLAR A BARREL oil up into the early 1970s and you can easily see why fossil fuels have racked up the market share numbers.

BBQMan:

Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and you destroy the housing market - even for small starter homes. Congratulations, you've single-handedly wiped out The American Dream. Now - if you want to talk about limits on it? THat's a different story.

Mind you, this is through the veil of the fact that I live in NH, but your idea for more taxes on larger homes is already in effect here. Larger lots mean much larger taxes for fewer services. For example, a one-acre lot with one house only has one family requiring services (especially school funding). That same lot divided by four means four families costing the town a LOT more than the incremental increase in taxes (4 houses on the lot versus one).

I like the golf-cart-community idea. More advance planning is NOT a bad thing. Heck, it was my accidental discovery of a story about The Villages that brought me to this site in the first place.

I also like the idea of HAVING THE OPTION of taking the train. I can see a terribly under-used line out my window across the river.

I also agree with shifting to nukes to generate electricity. For coal (mining issues aside) I'd like to know how clean the modern versions of Fischer-Tropsch (german invention that turns coal into liquid fuels) are. They were pretty dirty in SOuth Africa (as they were under an embargo they only had coal available) but I hear it's much better now.

One thing I don't want to see is a GPS transponder recording my every move. Way too much Big Brother for me. I *do* have an EZ-Pass transponder for the toll roads around here and maybe that's where we're headed. Local roads financed locally (property taxes, vehicle registrations, etc) and the interstates all become tolled with EZ-Pass or license plate photo recognition cameras set up at strategic points.

Either way, we're going to have to pay for it SOMEhow.

Nixon was POTUS. Back then there was much talk about being energy independent as soon as possible. It was to be a priority. We were importing 40% of our oil.

Not too long ago when gasoline was $4-5 per gallon, it was the battle cry once again.

Fast forward to the current crisis....yupper....same old same old.
Except today we import well over 70% of our oil.

As long as gasoline remains cheap (relatively speaking that is) Americans do not care as long as they are not inconvenienced.

During the past 20 years every time new initiatives were discussed (just like 2-3 years ago) for new refineries, new alternative fuels, higher mileage autos, electric autos, wind mills, nuclear....the stock answer was then as well as a couple of years ago...there is no sense undertaking programs like these because it will take 10 + years to see any benefit. Now just what do you think the political dolts of the day had in mind? Nothing! They were being lead, as they are today, by big oil.....and lip service. Just like we got from Obama a couple of nights ago.

As has been said before, the energy initiatives contain not only the solution to the oil dependence, but the so called global warming (if it is real) and as important new manufacturing to produce these new initiatives products.

Without a plan of action there will be no progress in the next 40 years. Without new manufacturing there will be no solution to the unemployment problem.

We the people are fickle. We blow hot and cold and the politicians count on that apathy.

As has been discussed many times before...just wait until Almadinanutjob lights up a nuke in the mid east or blocks the straights of Hormuz. Then watch what happens as the temporary interruptions of the past are paled in comparison to what we, WE (no R or D or black or white, et al) have experienced. No gasoline. No food on the shelves for starters. Doomsday?
Chicken little? Not at all. It is only a matter of time.
And then we can all sit around our candles and remember the good old days.....when we continued to allow our politicians to run their lips and do nothing.

Those we should feel very bad about are our children/grandchildren......we allowed it to happen.

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

BBQMan:

Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and you destroy the housing market - even for small starter homes. Congratulations, you've single-handedly wiped out The American Dream. Now - if you want to talk about limits on it? THat's a different story.

djplong - The Concept of 'The American Dream' came into existence in the late 1940's with the building of Levittown. The little house in the suburbs with a dad who drove to work in his Ford or Chevrolet, a stay-at-home mom, with four kids (this was the boomer generation being born), one dog and perhaps a white picket fence. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pbhales/Levittown.html

The reality of this dream has gone away, but we try to hold onto it and believe in it. This is why people continue to refer to The American Dream. That is why everyone thought every American family should own their own home. We need to realize that the American population of today bears little resemblance to the one in the dream. In the 1950’s 4% of children were born out of wedlock. Today that number is greater than 40%. The divorce rate continues to rise, but the number of divorces is actually falling because of our changing societal mores – we no longer get married. Abortion was essentially unknown but is very common today.

Today we deal with single parent families, blended families and families in which both parents work. None of these in any way approaches the nuclear family of the dream. It does not matter what caused these changes, the changes are real and there is no indication we will ever go back to the dream.

The American people need to construct a tax code and emphasis that deals with today’s situation, not that of the Cleavers. Our push for everyone to own their own home led to the housing bubble and the consequent shocks to the American economy. Ask yourself, when is the single parent of three kids find time to mow the lawn, trim the bushes, clean a large freestanding home, etc. The answer is that she does not have the time to do all this. The answer is that she cannot. While our vision is for everyone to own their own homes, trying to make that a reality has destroyed our rental market, priced homes out the reach of others and further isolated the man of the family from his parental responsibilities.

I could go through the details of having to move to mass transit both in intra-city travel and inter-city travel, but I will not. I simply leave with the statement of Charles Handy…”Why to we make driving cars free and taking the railroad expensive?” I urge you to think about this and hope you come to realize that this is a product of ‘The American Dream’

Let’s look at today’s realities and come to grips with them in a manner that does not require in the metaphor of the ubiquitous ostrich and tick our heads underground

Originally Posted by BBQMan

djplong - The Concept of 'The American Dream' came into existence in the late 1940's with the building of Levittown. The little house in the suburbs with a dad who drove to work in his Ford or Chevrolet, a stay-at-home mom, with four kids (this was the boomer generation being born), one dog and perhaps a white picket fence. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pbhales/Levittown.html

The reality of this dream has gone away, but we try to hold onto it and believe in it. This is why people continue to refer to The American Dream. That is why everyone thought every American family should own their own home. We need to realize that the American population of today bears little resemblance to the one in the dream. In the 1950’s 4% of children were born out of wedlock. Today that number is greater than 40%. The divorce rate continues to rise, but the number of divorces is actually falling because of our changing societal mores – we no longer get married. Abortion was essentially unknown but is very common today.

Today we deal with single parent families, blended families and families in which both parents work. None of these in any way approaches the nuclear family of the dream. It does not matter what caused these changes, the changes are real and there is no indication we will ever go back to the dream.

The American people need to construct a tax code and emphasis that deals with today’s situation, not that of the Cleavers. Our push for everyone to own their own home led to the housing bubble and the consequent shocks to the American economy. Ask yourself, when is the single parent of three kids find time to mow the lawn, trim the bushes, clean a large freestanding home, etc. The answer is that she does not have the time to do all this. The answer is that she cannot. While our vision is for everyone to own their own homes, trying to make that a reality has destroyed our rental market, priced homes out the reach of others and further isolated the man of the family from his parental responsibilities.

I could go through the details of having to move to mass transit both in intra-city travel and inter-city travel, but I will not. I simply leave with the statement of Charles Handy…”Why to we make driving cars free and taking the railroad expensive?” I urge you to think about this and hope you come to realize that this is a product of ‘The American Dream’

Let’s look at today’s realities and come to grips with them in a manner that does not require in the metaphor of the ubiquitous ostrich and tick our heads underground

Are you trying to confuse DJPLONG with the facts.

The American Dream started LONG before Levittown - though I would agree with you that Levittown gave a new look to it. It also made it 'affordable'.

The American Dream is having your own place. You can look at the pioneers, the Oklahoma Land Rush, the 'illegal' settling of the midwest (British colonial subjects weren't supposed to go west into French territory but they did anyway), etc.

The American Dream didn't start with post-WWII. I understand how it could look that way because of people looking back notalgically but they don't want to remember that the only reason 'dad' could earn enough for the family house et al was because the rest of the world economy was in rubble. The United States had the only industrialized base on the planet. Mom didn't have to work. Of course, none of that mattered if you were black - you still had the hoses turned on you. Heck you weren't even allowed to play baseball in the major leagues.

Everyone owning a home or condo is a GOOD thing. When you're invested in your own property, you keep it in better shape (as a general rule).

Like I said, if you want to talk about limits on the mortgage deduction, I think that's a fair place for discussion.

Just because some people perverted the 'rules of the game' into something that didn't resemble reality, it doesn't mean you throw the baby out with ther bathwater.

That being said, years ago, in a discussion on the old Flat Tax, I said that I'd be willing to talk about giving up my mortgage deduction in exchange for lower, flatter income tax rates.

Of course the real problem is that you have an entire economy that has their housing based on that. Granted it doesn't affect apartment building owners (since the whole mortgage is an expense that can be deducted) but I remember hearing a few years ago that home ownership was higher then than at any period in history (as a percentage of population). I would imagine that, except for the bubble, it's still largely true today.