There are two different issues here. The first is the desirability of using public transportation. The second is government making decisions about using public transportation.

If you want to discourage people from taking frivolous car trips, knock yourself out. But when the government starts deciding what constitutes frivolity, I have a problem.

You may think "slowing down" is a good thing, but for me, a longer transport to work means I have to spend more of my day devoted to work, rather than spending time with my wife, gardening, or any of the other number of things I could be doing with my time.

That is not a criticism of the use of public transportation, but when you are asking me to spend my money to support it, certain arguments don't make sense.

Establishing bus routes to suburban work locations is very expensive, and will have debatable impact on the amount of fuel consumed. A bus with only three people on it isn't doing anything for anyone.

I think the public transportation lobby has been extremely influential. In Minneapolis, we built a billion dollar trolley that will always lose money and is useful to almost no-one. It takes influence to get that done.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 30, 2008 6:05 PM

I am not of the opinion that sermons should push for more public transportation funding. Such a use of church time for a frivolous matter not pertaining to the church is idolatry.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | April 30, 2008 6:23 PM

Thanks for this post; the changes required will also mean that we need to pay more attention to urban design and city planning. The costs of building good transit simply aren't possible in sprawling subdivisions; but urban densities require much more attention and focus on public, collective 'assets' like parks, trail corridors, and open spaces.

People need to be more 'we' and less 'me'.
"We" requires more patience and vision than 'me' ever will.

Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | April 30, 2008 6:45 PM

How do we get this message to the isolated suburbanites who drive their SUVs into the garage every night, close the door behind them, and are never seen by their neighbors?

What's wrong with not being seen if you don't want to be seen? What percentage of SUV drivers actually use the "utility" part of their vehicle versus those who don't?

Posted by: aaron | April 30, 2008 7:46 PM

"insane carseat laws"

Yeah, there are far too many babies and small children who survive car crashes. And let's encourage parents to smoke cigarettes in the car while they are transporting their children. Maybe more of 'em will get breathing and lung problems.

I like to give my 4-year old a few shots of brown liquor before we get in the car. Then we totally ignore the carseat and seatbelt laws while I allow him to play with sharp knives in the backseat. That's how I get the government off my back by gol.

Posted by: lloyd crump | April 30, 2008 9:29 PM

aaron,

Too bad said LEO wasn't on the scene to do same to a family of Latinos in Maine about five years ago. Van full of 12 people, and only one survived the crash when they lost control and went off a bridge.

Posted by: squeaky | April 30, 2008 10:36 PM

...much of the obesity and cardiac problems (how much would there be if people walked and cycled?)

That should be more of an argument against taxpayer funding of either the upfront fuel cost or healthcare in general.

Posted by: aaron | April 30, 2008 11:27 PM

There should be more exercise amongst Americans, but there should be more options and resources that work far away from work because they cannot afford to live near it. Many take the bus and/or rapid transit (trains). We also should be promoting public transportation, so that there will be less cars on the road. We as a church, need to focus on these issues because it will help the people of this country in the long run. Plus, the way the economy is going, there needs to be dramatic change to up the value of the dollar. Plus, we need to freeze mortgage foreclosures, so there will be less unsheltered people.

Posted by: Nathan | April 30, 2008 11:57 PM

Check out Thomas Friedman's latest column" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

D

Posted by: Don | May 1, 2008 7:07 AM

Well you can at least see a car coming and attempt to swerve, can't see that infectious disease coming.

So let's make every road a toll road, end taxpayer-funded highways, make all drivers pay their full share of the cost to maintain those highways--along with the full costs of the fuel, just as Don G. suggests--and just see whether people really want to keep their hands on their steering wheels at all costs.

Those costs would just get pushed onto the consumer, just as high gas prices mean higher food prices now. Which means the poor will still get screwed under your plan.

There's rural poor as well, who would not see the benefits of all this city based transportation re-networking.

I guess everything will be brought in by rail or boat, great you've just taken city planning and forced it onto agriculture thereby decreasing variety since transportation is limited. You can probably kiss the organics goodbye. You'll increase factory farming, and increase pollution and siltation of the waterways through increased boat traffic.

Posted by: aaron | May 1, 2008 8:55 AM

Anti-lib--so tell me, how exactly will drilling for oil in (I presume you are referring to ANWR) help us? Answer these questions for me:

1. how long will it take to develop ANWR?
2. How much oil is there anyway?
3. How much oil does the US use every year?
4. How far will ANWR's production go meet those needs?

If you aren't referring to ANWR, then tell me how much oil is on American soil that we haven't already tapped. What does peak oil mean and the Hubbert Curve mean? What does the USGS think about our chances of meeting our own oil production needs?

Hate to cast a pall on your optimism about our nation's ability to meet our own energy needs through domestic oil production, but we don't have the oil to do it. But what would I know? I'm only a geologist...

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 10:45 AM

aaron, I'm not talking about getting rid of cars and trucks. I'm talking about providing transportation options--about not putting all our transportation eggs in one basket. We're probably always going to need cars and trucks, at least as far in the future as I can see.

And I don't think we should do away with government highway subsidies. But when I hear people whining that we shouldn't subsidize public transportation or rail systems, I'm calling their bluff. I'm reminding them how unbalanced our transportation subsidies are.

It's called consistency. Either we begin subsidizing transportation options or we should stop subsidizing the current one-dimensional system.

NM Rod: DUIs aren't the only impaired drivers out there. My mother-in-law, for example, shouldn't be driving. Her doctor told her so. She had a stroke several years ago and her response time is about the same as that of someone who's under the influence. But she drives anyway, because she has no other way to get around. Plus some drivers, while not impaired, are simply incompetent. Providing needed transportation options can help make our roadways safer.

Sure, there's a possibility of a drunk bus driver killing large numbers of people. There's also the possibility a storm could knock out signals, causing two trains to collide. We won't get rid of all possibility of disaster. But overall, between rail and autos, rail is safer. And wouldn't you like to see real enforcement of drunk driving laws? We can't do it now. Convicted DUIs are given "work driving rights." If they had other options to get to work, the judge could say no, you have to take the train to work. In many parts of Europe, licenses are revoked. Period. That person has to take the train or bus. And the legal limit for intoxication is much lower.

Someone above wrote that this isn't a spiritual issue. I disagree. It's called looking out for our neighbors. Even if one never uses public transportation, one benefits by it--cleaner air, less highway congestion, more sanity, quieter neighborhoods.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 1, 2008 11:06 AM

The best solution to high fuel prices is high fuel prices.

Amen. Which is one reason why McCain's summer break for the gasoline tax is such a ridiculous idea. See the Friedman column I referenced above for more serious reasons why it's such an insane idea.

Eric, do you agree with Don Gisselbeck that we should be paying the true cost for petroleum?

D

Posted by: Don | May 1, 2008 11:16 AM

Don and Eric,
I tend to agree with your assessment of high fuel costs being the best solution to high fuel costs. It again puts oil on a more level playing field with alternatives and stimulates growth in that market. I'm not sure why anyone who is for a free market would disagree, especially since they are the ones who cry out loudest about environmental concerns bringing in so much cost and not being "free market".

However, the problem is the oil prices have increased very quickly and too quickly for most Americans to have either planned for it or to have the resources to deal with these high fuel costs and the accompanying high cost of everything else.

There is also the argument that much of the high cost of oil comes from market manipulation ala Enron-like tactics and that OPEC itself is not playing fair (although, that could also be because they know their production is dropping, as many oil analysts suspect).

In the long run, I do think oil needs to get more expensive to encourage conservation and innovation. In the short run, considering the gas tax relief is proposed to be made up for by taxing oil company profits, I can't say I disagree with the proposal, and if we want any relief in this impending recession, it will be far more effective to deal with energy costs than it will be to send us all another bribery check. (Not that I will send my bribery check back to the government, mind you).

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 11:28 AM

"Eric, do you agree with Don Gisselbeck that we should be paying the true cost for petroleum?"

Similar arguments can be made about the true cost of public transportation - if the ticket prices truly represent all the costs involved, instead of being supported by a broad general taxation subsidy, they will be so high as to discourage use, and be as unaffordable as taxi rides. And that "real price of petroleum" will have to be added to inflate public transportation fuel costs, too.

Government is enormously inefficient in the way money is spent on transportation projects and they are subject to just the same corruption and pork issues as military spending is. It is no more likely, from experience with present and past public transit budgeting fiascos, that government will be any less wasteful than it has been in any other venue.

Individuals can make rational choices about which modes of personal transportation they use. Some people buy economical used vehicles, make their own repairs and recycle auto parts - or even convert vehicles to less polluting alternative fuels, such as vegetable oil or even recycled oil.

If you can convince, by reasoned argument, the majority of people to adopt certain policies, without coercion, that is fine. But once again, certain elites who believe their views better than others want the power to regulate and force the majority of others into their favored choices - while all the while, touring in isolated comfort from the masses in tax chariots paid by them.

How much fuel is used up by all the limos and air force ones of government planners?

As Orwell observed, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Posted by: N.M Rod | May 1, 2008 11:38 AM

Don,
I didn't read Friedman's column, but I think McCain's idea is basically an election-year gimmick. It might “help out” some people in the short-term, but it wouldn’t do anything to solve the problems of a shortage of oil. It would just put off, for a couple months, any hard decisions our society has to make about gasoline consumption.

As for Don G.’s overall point, I don’t have a problem with the price of gasoline reflecting the true cost of bringing that gasoline to market. I think it should. I’m all for doing away with any subsidies or tax breaks the oil companies receive. If we continue to subsidize fossil fuels, fuel and transportation alternatives will never become available to the wider market. While I’d probably argue with what Don G. thinks goes into the cost of gasoline or oil, his overall desire is fine by me.

Squeaky,
I definitely agree with your point. A rapid increase in the price of oil that the global economy doesn’t have time to absorb is a problem, particularly for the world’s poor who can’t adjust to inflation as well as we can.

Posted by: Eric | May 1, 2008 12:16 PM

Public transportation doesn't work for everybody -- particularly in areas where it's not up and running at all. My city has a lousy system, and while they are working on it, it's not easy, because jobs are no longer all in a downtown location.

High fuel prices will get more people to take public transit, but it also makes the rich richer. Oil companies are generally poorly run and make a lot of mistakes that would bankrupt other companies, but because they make oil, they have a HUGE cushion. Natural Gas is much more carefully regulated.

Posted by: frankie | May 1, 2008 2:53 PM

The problems outlined by President Bush are real, that the demand for oil is high and it will go higher.

It is the morally right thing to allow exploration of oil so that supply will meet demand domestically without the need for gigantic oil importation.

For instance, oil drilling should be permitted in the ANWR in Alaska when in compliance with environemental regulations--not shut down by political correctness and pressue.

It is also the right thing to provide public policy decisiions that provide for tax incentives and the like for development of otehr energy resources.

The impact upon the poor and the middle class is too great and will deprive them of the alternatives if the demand for energy is not met in this country. The aberrations to the food market set in motion by climate change gurus shifting resources from food to biofuels can tragically lead to inadequate food supplies in the United States and around the world.

It is definitely a two track problem with like solutions. Public transit is part of the solution but not the entire answer.

The reasonable answer is to allow oil production, build refineries, and encourage research and development in new forms of energy.

Posted by: John Keenan | May 1, 2008 3:07 PM

Armed2Win
"And in regards to oil, by some estimates (admittedly so), ANWR has up to 150 years+ supply of petroleum. And newly discovered fields in North Dakota, Montana and Colorado would allow us to become less dependent on other countries. "

sources please...

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 3:30 PM

Alan,
What does anything you wrote have to do with what Mary wrote? She's talking about gasoline prices and reliance on automobiles and you're talking about nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and the supposed large amounts of arable land taken up by wind and solar power.

Posted by: Eric | May 1, 2008 3:43 PM

Alan,

First of all--did you mean to misspell dam? I always think it is funny when my students do that on their exams--I'm never quite sure if they have done it purposely just to be funny, or if they really think it is spelled that way.

"Get rid of damns because of salmon and up the cost of electrical substantially."

I wonder what salmon fisherment would think of your point above? Their livelihood and the economy around that livelihood suffers substantially because of dams. There are two very valid sides to that argument.

"Build wind turbines and solar farms eating up thousand of acres of land that can be used to grow sustainable crops."

Wind farms are built on farmer's lands who also get compensated for the use of their land. Each turbine takes up very little space, so most of the land is still used for farming. I visited a turbine in MN, and the crops were just about butting up to the wind turbine. Wind turbines provide very low-cost electricity which some researchers are hoping will be able to be stored in hydrogen fuel cells--the alternative energy many think will be the hope of the future.

Solar furnaces do take up a lot of space, but they are erected in the desert...in the desert, where there is no arable land for crops, unless of course, you irrigate, which leads to many more problems, which the people who rely on the Colorado River can tell you about.

And solar furnaces aren't the only form of solar energy--a simple sunroom will do wonders for reducing your heating bills.

"Outlaw nuclear because we don't want giant rabbits, Gila monsters and the like sacking our towns."

Many environmentalists are coming around on nuclear, particularly because of the lack of emissions. That said, even though safety measures are doubly and triply redundant, I would still be nervous about it. It isn't like there is any room for error--see Chernobyl...and what to do with all that waste?

"Then we continue to NOT build oil refineries. "

The sooner we stop taking a supply-side approach to energy independence, the sooner we will actually become energy independent. If we think we can supply our way out of this problem, we will never solve it. The years of cheap oil are pretty much over. I really don't expect to see gas much farther below $3/gallon ever again, and the sooner we find sustainable solutions to the problem, the better off we will be.

"pseudoscience of the radical without any critical thinking."

the issues are far more complex than you seem to realize. I'm a scientist and a geologist, so I have spent some time studying these issues, and it is important that all consumers take a look at where we are at, what we do to exacerbate the problem, and take a much broader view of how we can fix the problem. It isn't pseudoscience that cheap oil is declining--it is a geologic fact. It isn't pseudoscience that we currently have an unsustainable approach to energy consumption. For us to move forward, it is time to stop dismissing what we think goes against our politics as "pseudoscience".

If you really want to learn about these issues, I highly recommend Paul Robert's "End of Oil"

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 3:57 PM

Bruce in CO--I agree totally. One of the most frustrating things about my grocery store is their insistence that every item must have its own private, personal, plastic bag (OK, it's not that bad, but just about). So, I've switched to paper and my goal is to bring the paper bags in with me to the store (something I always forget to do). It's only a small step towards dealing with wasting plastics, but you are right it is an issue we need to take a much broader look at.

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 4:09 PM

First of all, I am very pleased to see that Don and others have pointed out the large amount of government subsidy involved in making us a "car nation." This is not just an individual rights vs. public good issue. The situation we are in right now is due to ill-advised social planning that has for five decades encouraged people to buy automobiles and consume fuel. So, no, those of us who advocate public transportation ,walking and bicycling are not introducing social planning into the mix (as the libertarian-minded are saying), but calling for replacement of poor social planning with better social planning.

Frankie said: "High fuel prices will get more people to take public transit, but it also makes the rich richer."

No, not necessarily. Greatly increasing the tax on fuel will force the oil companies to lower their margin of profit. It means more of what we pay for gasoline will go to our own government rather than to hostile governments like saudi Arabia, or to wealthy oil CEO's. With that money, the government can begin to rebuild its transportation infrastructure, including (along with the obvious bridge repair) establishing light rail systems or other forms of responsible transportation.

Posted by: I and I | May 1, 2008 4:16 PM

"If my pastor wastes one minute during a sermon promoting public transportation, I'm walking out."

God forbid! The point of sermons are to make us feel good (or guilty), not to encourage us to think about how we can apply Christian teaching to the real world. How about "If my pastor wastes one minute during a sermon promoting civil rights, I'm walking out?"

Don't let the door hit you.

Posted by: I and I | May 1, 2008 4:28 PM

I used to commute 50 miles into downtown Seattle to be with my design team. This used up about 3 hours a day of what could have been productive time. When I stopped commuting about 6 years ago, parking was costing $90/month. Even driving a low maintenance Honda CRX (45 mpg) and burning $1.50/gallon gasoline, the economic burden of commuting was substantial. I-5 just kept getting worse every year, road rage was on the rise and the stress factor was making my life style unsustainable.

In the early 80's our office and our clients began using fax machines, which allowed us to exchange graphic and text information as rapidly as making a telephone call.
Without having to wait for documents to get through the mail or bicycle courier, we could make things happen faster.

Shortly after the fax came Computer Aided Design, which made it possible to put together construction documents faster, more accurately and best of all, to make beneficial changes to the design right up until the deadlines.

But it was the internet that really changed my professional life.
Six years ago, I built a small office and design studio near our home in the country.
Now I can coordinate design teams without leaving the premises.

My 12 years on I-5 made me hate automobiles so much I'll do almost anything to avoid getting into one.
I've cut my car trips down to 2 or 3 per week to the nearest town, 10 miles away.
This is going to add years to my life span.

Information workers are fortunate if they can telecommute.
If you're an information worker, explore the possibility of telecommuting with your team members.
If you can just reduce your commutes to 2-3 per week, it'll make a big improvement in your attitude toward life.

Posted by: justintime | May 1, 2008 4:51 PM

I personally think the best way to cut commuting costs (and I'm not being funny) is for more companies to use tele-commuting. A former company of mine did a 9/80 schedule, which gave every one every other Friday off -- those kinds of creative solutions can also reduce our dependence on oil of any kind.

Wind energy is still all subsidized by the government. One of the largest opponents to wind energy is environmentalists because wind mills kill a lot of birds.

Eric & Ron --
on the other side, when it comes to Natural Gas Liquids 40% is used for plastics, 28% is used for propane (mostly heating), 10% is Butane for synthetic rubber, 15% is used as a gas additive and 7% is Isobutane, a motor fuel feedstock.

It's pretty hard to talk about oil without talking about natural gas.

Posted by: frankie | May 1, 2008 5:31 PM

Eric,

The idea is based on the principle of price-elasticity that each commodity has a price level at which people will decrease their purchase of it. Unfortunately, that point for oil is very high (i.e. the price of a gallon of gas will have to rise to a very high point before people start buying less of it in response), which is why the companies have been able to raise their prices so much and we keep buying it.

However, adding a very large tax to each gallon of gas (say two dollars) will not make the companies add the amount of the tax to its current price. In our example, gas is $3.65 today, but with the $2 tax it would not be $5.65 because people would start consuming much less at that level. Instead, the oil companies would eat some of the cost and raise the price only to, say, $4.15. But a higher percentage of the purchase of a gallon of gas would go to the government, and a lower percentage would go to the company. Moreover, it would force OPEC countries to keep their prices lower because they don't want to see decreased demand.

This idea has been advanced by some conservatives (i.e. Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, Robert Samuelson) as well as some liberals. Unfortunately, McCain and Clinton are talking just the opposite, as can be expected.

Posted by: I and I | May 1, 2008 5:51 PM

Don--you're probably right that it is just an election year gimmick.

Still and all, a better economic stimulus package would include some sort of way to deal with the high energy costs.

In the long run, though, this is probably something we need--wake up call. That being said, last year when gas prices were high during the summer driving season, it didn't stop many of us from driving much. I think it has gotten to the point where it might just change some of our habits.

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 6:21 PM

Dear Mary:

I am profoundly disappointed in both the tone and content of your article.

It is not clear to me why you call oil company profits "exorbitant." Big, yes. But exorbitant? Relative to what?

Profit at ExxonMobil currently runs about 7.5% of sales. This is a bit higher than the comparable figure of near 5% of sales for Wal*Mart, but Wal*Mart does almost no processing to add value to goods they buy. They are not manufacturers with plants of enormous scale like ExxonMobil. So ExxonMobil has a lot more capital at risk per dollar of sales that Wal*Mart. NOt surprising that the profit rate at ExxonMobil needs to be a bit higher. On the other hand, you might want to compare ExxonMobil profit to profit as a percent of revenue at your local bank. I strongly suspect that your local bank CEO would be out on the street in a moment were he to deliver the lousy profit rate that any of the large oil comanies delivers. Check it out!

BTW: ExxonMobil owns about 0.62% of the world's oil reserve. National oil companies, like Saudi Aramco, own nearly 80% of the world's oil (Data from Oil and Gas Journal - Sept 17 and Dec 24, 2007).

Who gave you the idea to declare that retired oil workers like me no longer need the dividends that come out of those exorbitant profits? I suppose poverty is one of your family values - so long as the poverty is my family's, not yours?

Please do your homework before indulging in cheap demagoguery that poisons the political arena and makes it harder for honest oil workers to keep tanks at your local filling station from going dry.

If you have questions or want more information, please let me know.

Charles Scouten

Posted by: Charles Scouten | May 1, 2008 8:07 PM

Frankie, what about planning ahead and purchasing party supplies for the entire week?

Why mandate a particular alcohol product be purchased in only one location with no other goods allowed for sale?

Posted by: aaron | May 1, 2008 9:23 PM

"We wouldn't be in nearly the fix we are in if the energy direction Carter laid out in the 70's had been followed rather than scoffed at by the Reagan and Bush Administrations."

And leave us not forget that it was Jimmy CArter who first promulgated the Carter Doctrine - establishing the idea of military hegemony over the Middle East justified by the determination that the U.S. needed to secure the region's oil energy resources as a matter of national interest and security!

Every President since has been remarkably consistent with carrying out the Carter Doctrine.

Posted by: N. M. Rod | May 1, 2008 9:38 PM

NMR: "If someone has practical ideas on how to address this accountability issue, please feel free to discuss some answers we can work towards, for otherwise great suffering is coming, erasing all the social and economic progress of first world populations."

One word: 'tariffs'

Tariffs are anathema to conservative free traders with personal economic security and a piece of the global action.

All nations, including the USA had tariffs since fairly recently when globalmania and free trade ideology captured the imagination of the global corporate elite.
America took the lead in removing our protective tariffs -- to open up markets in developing nations for multinational corporations who were poised to exploit these developing markets and the cheap labor in developing nations.
Ross Perot predicted a 'giant sucking sound' of American jobs being shipped offshore where labor is cheap and regulations nonexistent.
Unfortunately he was right.

America ignores the national security implications of protecting our core industries.
We act as if our only core industry is weaponry.

Also, America is losing to developing nations that utilize central planning for their economies.
Developing nations identify their core industries, protect them with tariffs and then plan for economic growth.

Central planning for America's economy is also anathema for conservatives, who preach free market happy talk while America's economy is being hollowed out.

Posted by: justintime | May 1, 2008 10:34 PM

If my pastor wastes one minute during a sermon promoting public transportation, I'm walking out.

Posted by: Nathan | May 1, 2008 4:15 PM

I agree, Nathan. The hell with any notion of stewardship. What an unbiblical notion. The last thing we need is pastors talking about unbiblical stuff like stewardship from the pulpit.

Posted by: canucklehead | May 2, 2008 12:25 AM

Yeah, there are far too many babies and small children who survive car crashes. "

Is a nine-year-old a "baby"? HAve you even bothered to do the research to understand the issue to which I am referring? At any rate, carseat laws have done quite a bit to increase the size of the average vehicle.

If anyone would care to take a stab as to how that relates to the post above, I would be intersted to hear it.

"I wonder what salmon fisherment would think of your point above? "

Did you mean to spell "fishermen" as "fisherment"? Because some of my students do that, and boy do I get a laugh, having joined the spelling brigade and all.

"Face it, the main reason we drive is to enhance our status. "

My Ford Focus is a chick magnet.

"Government-funded corporate welfare to these industries are what has made urban sprawl, traffic snarls, road rage, and the rest possible."

I'll agree that boondoggles have led to undesirable sprawl, but I do not agree that improving our roadways increases snarls an road rage. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

"China is a centrally planned economy with 'free markets' operating in all industry sectors."

Yes, let's emulate China. This is a sound solution.

"Central planning for America's economy is also anathema for conservatives, "

True, as it was for the framers of the Constitution.

"I agree, Nathan. The hell with any notion of stewardship. "

Because advocating one set of policies = stewardship, whether those policies are detrimental or not. This is how we wound up with public ethanol subsidies. Got a glib response to that?

"Frankie, what about planning ahead and purchasing party supplies for the entire week?"

Don, what about government letting us do as we wish? You can have an abortion any day of the week, yes? But buying a beer is somehow out of bounds?

"Who gave you the idea to declare that retired oil workers like me no longer need the dividends that come out of those exorbitant profits?"

But that wasn't in the press release.

"Still and all, a better economic stimulus package would include some sort of way to deal with the high energy costs. "

How so? How about a concrete proposal that WE can all tsk-tsk. Have at it.

"but with the $2 tax it would not be $5.65 because people would start consuming much less at that level. Instead, the oil companies would eat some of the cost and raise the price only to, say, $4.15."

Seriously? You believe this? You think that oil companies will find $1.50 per gallon in their existing margins?

"One of the most frustrating things about my grocery store is their insistence that every item must have its own private, personal, plastic bag"

Not all of us live in California College towns. I lug the groceries into my house. They are damn heavy, and they tear because they are in paper bags. At Aldi, they charge by the bag. I love Aldi, don't you?

"Wind energy is still all subsidized by the government. One of the largest opponents to wind energy is environmentalists because wind mills kill a lot of birds."

Or because they are ugly, just ask Ted Kennedy and Walter Kronkite.

"How will increased gasoline taxes reduce the profit for oil companies?"

Um, feeling good is important, Eric.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 2, 2008 2:26 AM

Read a book about how China became the world's factory.
China is a centrally planned economy with 'free markets' operating in all industry sectors.
This 'hybridized' Chinese economic system is eating America's lunch.

Kevin: "Yes, let's emulate China. This is a sound solution."

No, Kevin, let's not emulate China.
Let's start making sense with our economic policy.
Conservative faith based economics is a failure in America.
Central planning is not unique to China and former Communist nations.
Almost all technically advanced nations utilize central planning to optimize economic growth and stability.
If America doesn't begin to pay attention to real world economics, we will end up being owned by China.
And we are well on the way to becoming colonized
Is this what you want Kevin?
Better start learning Chinese.

Posted by: justintime | May 2, 2008 12:08 PM

Don & Others --

That is the problem in many states -- you can't purchase party supplies without making separate trips to the liquor store, and many communites don't want those stores in residential areas.

A six-pack of beer will last my husband and I several months, and we only buy chips for the Superbowl or when our local team is in a playoff but for many, it makes a difference on fuel usage.

Posted by: frankie | May 2, 2008 12:33 PM

Don,

I'm in total agreement with your assessment of the China situation.

I don't think America can escape this excruciating situation without some form of holistic economic planning.

Trusting and worshiping The Invisible Hand brought us to the brink of this disaster.
It's time to start trusting Our Common Sense.

Posted by: justintime | May 2, 2008 1:09 PM

Since we are discussing China, I think it is worthwhile here to quote from the Thomas Friedman op-ed that Don referenced earlier that discussed pausing the federal gasoline tax:

"This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks... When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit."

Kevin, you laugh at the ideas put forth by some on this thread. But ask yourself who you really want the lion's share of your gasoline expenditures going to; your own "evil" government, or foreign governments. some of whom are outright hostile to United States interests?

Don is right: this very serious issue goes far beyond silly, adolescent, government-shouldn't-tell-anyone-what-to-do arguments.

Posted by: I and I | May 2, 2008 2:35 PM

The problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists.

Going back to failed authoritarian, centrally-planned, one-size-fits-all policies mandated by an elite, which diminish independent thought and choice, is just going from one failed paradigm back to the one that provoked it.

In order to make sure everyone complies with the central plan, it's necessary to abolish freedom of choice and speech, because they can easily derail the plans (ill-advised as they always are) if allowed to undermine them in practice or theory.

And what makes you think that the socialist planners will have respect for Christian freedom of conscience? Centrally controlled health care workers must participate in abortion, for instance, or lose the ability to work. Families are only allowed to have the children determined for them by bureaucrats, only live and work where it makes sense to the central planners and only travel if determined it's of benefit by the central planners.

Just what the heck does any of this have to do with what Jesus told us, to love our enemies and do good for all, not through government compulsion by an arbitrary elite, but out of individual free will, in voluntary association?

We have major problems in America, but they have been engendered by an excessive focus on materialism, not on a particular economic system that's supposedly inferior to communism, per se. Socialism and communism are exclusively focussed on materialism, too. That's why the totalitarian central planners in Beijing had few problems moving from "godless communism" to equally "godless capitalism" because both are "godless materialism."

The problem is not too much freedom, but too little - we are enslaved by greed, the love of money. We do not have the scope to make individual choices to do good for others that we should have in a truly free society. More economic choices in how we live are necessary, not fewer.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 2, 2008 4:12 PM

I and I,
Thanks for the filling me on the theory about gas taxes and oil company profits. I honestly hadn't heard of it before.

It makes sense to me if the motivation and end result is to get people to think of ways of being more efficient with their gasoline use. If the motivation is merely about sticking it to the oil companies, I'm not a fan.

But again, thanks for going into more detail.

Eric

Posted by: Eric | May 2, 2008 4:33 PM

My wife and I are leaving for a weekend retreat away from technological distractions.
I'll be checking this thread on Monday to see what other ideas have come to the surface.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

Love,

Posted by: justintime | May 2, 2008 5:11 PM

"Not offended at all. Just a general commentary that nobody here has the benefit of an editor. "

There's a difference between harping on someone's spelling and making a joke. I don't think it was that difficult to recognize that I was doing the latter, and I really don't understand why it inspired your snarky comment. Even if you really did miss my attempt at humor, you certainly could have expressed your thoughts without resorting to sarcasm.

Posted by: squeaky | May 2, 2008 7:35 PM

You assert that they are lame, but do not argue as much.

Kevin, I've given my arguments above and demonstrated why arguments against public transport are lame. Why don't you re-read my earlier comments?

D

Posted by: Don | May 2, 2008 10:42 PM

Justintime - In what way, structurally, is the U.S economy different from the countries you listed in your second-to-last post?

Why I ask is that when I look at Germany, the UK, Japan, and the others you mention, as well as the U.S., I see countries that practice free trade when it suits them and use protective tariffs and import quotas when it suits them. I see countries that subsidize chosen industries and let other industries exist without subsidies. I see countries that allow the free flow of labor on occasion and restrict the free flow of labor on other occasions. I see countries in which the government highly regulates certain industries and lets others go with little to no regulation. Fundamentally, the U.S. economic structure isn't any different than these other countries (leaving aside China, which I think you’ve appropriately lumped into an entirely different category of economic structure).

And, in fact, none of these countries you’ve mentioned is "eating America's lunch". One could argue that over the last couple years some European economies have gained strength against the U.S., but that isn't a result of central planning. It's mainly a result of the weak dollar, which has declined in value mostly because of the national debt (and a more vigorous anti-American sentiment because of certain foreign policy moves), which Don rightly brought up as a serious problem.

The national debt has little to do with a lack of central planning, and has everything to do with the central government spending more money than it's willing to take in taxes. This is what's going to come back and bite us, not some lack of a holistic, totalitarian state.

Posted by: Eric | May 3, 2008 3:02 PM

Don also wrote:

What indeed if all drivers had to pay their full share of the costs of road building and maintenance for the privilege of driving instead of taking a bus or train?

Actually, fuel taxes are the primary source of funds for road maintenance and repair in most states, so that's more or less the case already. The subsidies for public transportation are at least as large.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | May 4, 2008 11:04 AM

There comes a point at which we must be prepared to accept Americans for who they are. Americans place a high value on individual initiative and mobility. That means we take cars where Europeans ride subways. We like being able to set our own schedules and come and go as we please, rather than have our comings and goings determined for us by a bus schedule. We like being able to carry whatever we can fit in the back seat or the trunk.

Wolverine, I don't believe that Americans are intrinsically the way you describe them, anymore than Europeans are intrinsically the way you describe them. I think history will demonstrate that these characteristics you describe are the result of sixty years of conditioning, championed by the auto industry and its supporters. Before and immediately after WWII, Americans had transportation options. Most cities had streetcar lines. Here in Ohio, we had interurban lines that connected cities to outlying smaller towns. And people used these lines. Of course, we also had cars and trucks.

But sixty years of promotion of automobiles at the expense of all other forms of transportation have given us this result. We could have maintained--and improved--the streetcars and interurban lines, but we chose not to. Cheap fuel helped convince us that the auto was the way to go, of course. And don't forget the anecdotal stories of GM buying up local streetcar lines in order to put them out of business. There must be some truth behind those stories.

All that is changing now because of high fuel prices and the national security liability of remaining dependent on foreign oil.

Promoters of public transportation are not suggesting we get rid of cars and trucks. Cars and trucks will still be around, and those who need to carry stuff will still have them available. We just want to restore the more balanced transport system that we used to have. Continued dependence on them alone is becoming a liability, and is becoming very costly.

BTW, Germans love their cars as much as, if not more than, Americans do. But they also decided to keep their other transportation systems intact. Public transportation is convenient there, and many use it. With fuel at around $8.00 per gallon, they limit their use of cars. But when they do drive, they have more freedom than most Americans do--no speed limits on the Autobahn, for example.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 5, 2008 6:14 AM

Here's an article about the Chinese plans to expand their rail network. Sorry, I made an error--they "only" plan to expand it by 35%, not 50%. Still, that amounts to something like 15,000 miles of new track by 2020.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IB07Cb03.html

D

Posted by: Don | May 5, 2008 7:49 AM

Kevin S. wrote:

I think the public transportation lobby has been extremely influential. In Minneapolis, we built a billion dollar trolley that will always lose money and is useful to almost no-one. It takes influence to get that done.

If you're ever in Detroit and want to see the closest thing to a Pure Waste of Taxpayer Funds, check out the "People Mover". Hardly anyone rides the thing but it's still up there going around in circles, empty. There was a researcher who calculated that it would be cheaper to give each rider on that thing a free cab ride.

Look, when I lived in Washington DC I loved, loved, loved the DC Metro, but there's a lot of hare-brained light-rail ideas out there. And as for busses, we'd probably be better off if the government got out of running busses altogether and let private companies take those over. If people are willing to pay for the ride, they'll work out, if people aren't, there's probably no need for them.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | May 5, 2008 12:38 PM

"Kevin, I did not ignore the arguments you list, though I didn't deal with most of them directly."

Correct.

"I don't know about India, but China is making a major investment in intercity rail systems. They plan to expand their rail lines by 50%--from the current 40K miles to 60K miles--in the next fifteen years."

And that investment is to accommodate an existing need, which is largely a function of freight lines. When it comes to creating public transport for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions, there is no evidence that China or India is willing to take this step, which is the point.

"The price of fuel is making this argument less sustainable. It's difficult, yes, but not impossible. Higher fuel costs are making it more possible."

So why not wait until fuel costs make this a more affordable option? In Minnesota, if a bus line is packed, they add more busses, because it is cost-efficient to do so.

" But this is no argument against investing in public transportation. "

It is an argument against having government choose an "ideal" form of transportation. Funding public transport can have negative consequences if demand does not meet the supply.

"And forcing the poor to continue relying on cars hurts them more. "

We aren't "forcing" them to do anything by not creating public transportation. By utilizing gas taxes to pay for public transportation, we ARE forcing them (and everyone else) to pay more.

"Maybe, maybe not. Many workers will never be able to telecommute, or only occasionally. This isn't an argument against public transportation per se."

Telecommuting will assuredly reduce congestion. There is no other possibility. And we should factor the growth in telecommuting in our plans to introduce public transportation to remote suburbs and smaller towns.

"And don't forget the anecdotal stories of GM buying up local streetcar lines in order to put them out of business."

The Wikipedia entry on this theory cites "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" as a source. That's the beauty of the conspiracy theory umbrella. You can throw all manner of evidence at the wall and hope some of it will stick.

The environmental movement has been in desperate need of credibility for some time. The "Who Killed the Electric Car?" crowd scares people, and rightly so.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 5, 2008 12:51 PM

Kevin - Everyone knows it was the "Stonecutters" who killed the electric car.

"Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg, a star?

We do! We do!"

:)

Posted by: Eric | May 5, 2008 1:15 PM

Kevin--you were mocking me. Perhaps you meant it to be funny, but that's not at all how it came across to me. Tone is not always obvious in the written word, hence the invention of emoticons \=Z.

Posted by: squeaky | May 5, 2008 3:59 PM

Eric - The national debt has little to do with a lack of central planning, and has everything to do with the central government spending more money than it's willing to take in taxes. This is what's going to come back and bite us, not some lack of a holistic, totalitarian state.

We're talking abut two different deficits, Eric.
You're talking about the Budget Deficit contributing to the National Debt.
I'm talking about our Trade Deficit with China.

Both of these deficits are major factors behind our collapsing economy and the deteriorating value of our dollar.
And both of these deficits are the result of conservative economic policies.

1. Supply-side, trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy produce massive budget deficits with questionable value for stimulating our economy.

2. Military spending on weaponry and war operations generate massive budget deficits with questionable value for real long term economic health. If you spend millions on a cruise missile and launch it at an enemy, you just blew millions of dollars away. If you spend millions on schools, you create an asset. Military spending expands dramatically under conservative Republican foreign policy.

3. Trade deficits have also dramatically increased as a result of conservative 'free trade - free market' ideology which has created the massive trade imbalance with China. China exploits the 'blind side' of conservative free trade ideology, appropriates our manufacturing jobs, harvests a massive surplus of US dollars and effectively 'eats our lunch'.

On Budget deficits:

The fiscal legacy of every administration from Truman through Carter was to reduce the interest cost relative to income and therefore the burden on future generations to raise more taxes or forego government programs.
After WWII, both Democrats and Republicans had been reducing the national debt until Gerald R. Ford, who raised it slightly. Then Jimmy Carter reduced it, then Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush increased it rapidly for 12 years--all the while complaining about it being too high. This is beautifully illustrated by a graph of the national debt vs. GDP made using unaltered data from whitehouse.gov. In order to cover newly-spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.
Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act that was opposed by every single Republican in Congress, led by Newt Gingrich! The Republicans claimed that the Debt Reduction Act would result in HIGHER deficits and also result in an economic recession during President Clinton's term. Obviously, with hindsight they were completely wrong.
Under Bush II the national debt soared from $5.6 trillion at the start of 2001 to $9.1 trillion, in part because of the Iraq war and Bush’s tax cuts.
Republicans don't seem to be very good at math or economics.

Holistic planning for the American economy is another issue. See my next post in response to your next post.

Posted by: justintime | May 5, 2008 6:21 PM

Has anyone else noticed this?

Yes, justintime, it has been noted--and commentd on--before. But it hasn't changed anything.

Par for the course, apparently.

D

Posted by: Don | May 5, 2008 7:00 PM

"Maybe I've missed something, but I have yet to see even one constructive idea for solving any of the world's problems coming from veteran conservative posters on this site."

As a conservative I'll offer a few suggestions for improving America.

-A 30% tariff on all imports from China and any other nation that engage in the manipulation of their currency or take other action to give them an unfair advantage.

-A smaller tariff on all other imports to facilitate the elimination of the income tax.

-The withdrawal of American soldiers from the majority of its overseas bases.

-Withdrawal from NATO, the UN, and other international organizations.

-Significant reductions in the size of the federal government by eliminating several federal departments including education.

-Deep cuts to entitlement programs in an effort to pay back the national debt.

-The repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

-Ending ethanol mandates and eliminating farm subsidies.

-Return to a gold standard.

Posted by: J. P. | May 5, 2008 10:24 PM

Finally a conservative steps up to the plate and offers a few suggestions for improving America.

Thanks, J.P.

Posted by: justintime | May 6, 2008 12:43 AM

Wolverine: "If you're ever in Detroit and want to see the closest thing to a Pure Waste of Taxpayer Funds, check out the "People Mover". Hardly anyone rides the thing..."

Wolverine, I absolutely agree that the "People Mover" is idiotic and should be scrapped. It is set up for tourists and the downtown lunch crowd and that's about it--in the poorest major city in the country.

The Detroit metro area badly needs a comprehensive public transporation system because many of Detroit's poor work low-wage jobs in the suburbs and have no way to get to their jobs except by car. Your response was to Kevin's comment that the public transportation lobby is powerful; I think to put the People Mover in perspective, it is fair to say it is because of the automobile lobby that Detroit never developed much of a transportation system in the first place.

Posted by: I and I | May 6, 2008 11:57 AM

Justinetime – First off, you won’t find me defending recent Republican tax and spending policies. As I mentioned, the annual budget deficits that lead to national debt (much of which is held by foreign countries) is serious problem and leads significantly to the weak dollar. The trade deficit, as you point out, is also complicit in the weak dollar. I’m not arguing with any of this. You also won’t find me defending all the money the U.S. spends on its military.

Secondly, my point in questioning you is to understand what exactly you’re advocating. You said the U.S. needs to centrally plan its economy. Various people on this blog pointed out the colossal failures that past pure centrally planned economies (USSR, Mao’s China, etc) have been. You responded that you weren’t really referring to those countries, but other countries in Western Europe and Japan. I responded by saying that these countries aren’t really pure central planned economies. They, like the U.S., are hybrids that mix varying degrees of central planning with market forces. All these countries employ regulation, trade barriers, protectionism and central planning when they want to and, at the same time, they also freely trade, deregulate, and let the market work in certain industries when they want to. These aren’t solely free market economies or solely centrally planned economies.

As for “free trade” policies, most economists tell us that the “free trade” agreements the U.S. has entered into with the dozen or so countries around the world have a negligible effect on the U.S. economy. The net gains or losses are minimal. The one country with which the U.S. trade policies are really having an effect is China. The U.S. doesn’t have a free trade agreement with China; the U.S. has highly regulated, managed trade with China. The U.S. has given China “Most Favored Nation Status”, or something like that, but that’s not a FTA. (Incidentally, if you look at the “Roll Call” votes for the China MFN in Congress it was supported by a sizable number of Democrats and opposed by a sizable number of conservative Republicans. It wasn’t a party-line vote. It was also supported by Pres. Clinton. Up until Pres. Bush was elected, FTAs were supported strongly by many Democrats). There are all sorts of tariffs and subsidies used by both China and the U.S. that distort trade between the two countries. Using China as an example of the failures of free trade policies doesn’t make sense.

Again, my point in questioning your support for central/holistic planning has more to do with your lack of specifics about what you actually mean by the phrase. Simply saying “the U.S. needs to do what Western Europe does” isn’t very specific. It’s basically meaningless, because the U.S. does do what many countries in Western Europe do. If you want to get into more specifics about which industries or economic sectors you think the U.S. should engage in more holistic/central planning, I’m all ears…

It also appears that every time someone shows an example of the failures of central planning from the real world (from large failures such as the USSR to smaller domestic failures such as U.S. agriculture policy) you respond by saying the equivalent of “that’s not a good example of proper central planning” or “if we only got the right people in office they wouldn’t do it that way”. Central planning, like most economic theories, is great on paper, but when applied in the real world it’s a lot messier. It’s hard to have a logical discussion with someone who refuses to take ownership of the real-world failures of one of their ideas.

Posted by: Eric | May 6, 2008 12:13 PM

Sorry Eric, my fault. I should have read through some of your comments before responding to justintime. I hope you see these comments since this thread has fallen below the threshold.

And I and I is right about Wolverine. He didn't belittle--I'm not even sure he completely disagreed, either.

Sensitive, maybe, but after watching a lot of real belittlement going on, it's easy to think that everyone who disagrees is operating in the same manner.

Peace

Posted by: Don | May 6, 2008 1:02 PM

Boy, if this was 1958 instead of 2008 I believe J.P.'s suggestions might just have a chance of making a difference. If we weren't borrowing billions of dollars from China like they were a Pez dispenser full of cash to float-pay the interest rate of our own finanical mismangement just maybe. If we want to see just how quickly our government would crumble and our current way of life would come to a sudden halt lets just go ahead and become an isolated nation - sure we can withdraw from all associations (NATO, UN etc)and lets leave behind military bases where we offer some form of protection to our own society as well as to others. Let's take up carrying gold in our pockets and spend it among ourselves that still won't eleviate the debt that we've incurred. What do we do with that? Take a mulligan? We'll all start riding bicycles and carrying brown-bagged lunches and still have less financial means than we have today. Geeez!!!!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 6, 2008 3:35 PM

Justintime,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but I only have a minute.

I think all of the suggestions I made eventually come back to the ones that you agreed with. Where I think you and I may differ is in our views of the federal government. I apologize if I am mischaracterizing you, but I suspect you believe that we need to make the government work for the people. To some extent I agree with that notion but at the same time, I don't believe it is possible to defeat the special interests in Washington. Rather than take the power back, I would rather take it away from the federal government. So most of my proposals are related to reducing the power of the government. The biggest problems that we are going to face in the future are going to be the falling dollar and the national debt. The longer we wait to address those problems the more it will hurt.

Returning to a gold standard would have a number of benefits. Many people argue that a commodity based money is more resistant to inflation. Reducing inflation has the potential to dramatically change American society. We could become savers rather than spenders and it would also benefit those on a fixed income, especially the elderly. But the most important feature of a gold standard is that it makes it more difficult for a government to borrow money, which would promote fiscal responsibility in Washington. No more unfunded entitlement programs or wars.

I hope that the repeal of the 17th Amendment would help to reduce the power of the federal government. If senators were to be elected by state legislators they would be more likely to represent the interests of their states. It would also diminish the influence of their constituents which I realize is a double edged sword.

The federal government's entitlement spending is out of control. And I'm not only referring to foodstamps and medicaid, but the way our government operates. Matching funds for state programs, whether its road repair or welfare, encourages inefficiency. When states are put in a position where they can save money by spending it unneccessarily, they'll do it. It's the same scam retailers run at Christmas, and it works. The federal government is not in a position to assess the individual needs of every state, and it shouldn't be funding state problems anyway. That money would be better spent reducing our national debt. The money that we owe to other nations threatens our national securtiy and sovereignty, it is much more important than most departments of the federal government.

I oppose international organizations like the UN and NATO because they don't do anything to benefit us. I'm not denying that NATO played an important role during the Cold War, but the Soviet Union no longer exists and I don't support the notion of the United States remaining in a perpetual alliance with Europe. I don't even know where to start with the UN. It has been virtually useless since its founding, and the results it achieves don't justify the money spent on it. I read today that the US is contributing $400 million to the renovations at the UN complex in New York. There are a lot of Americans who could put that money to better use.

To be completely honest, I'm really an isolationist at heart. I'd like to see America become a shining city on a hill, leading by example rather than direct involvement in other nations' affairs.

Posted by: J. P. | May 6, 2008 5:28 PM