Gas Hysteria

At one point during the great, twenty-five percent of the population was unemployed. This figure is probably understated, as it is unlikely that many married females considered themselves unemployed, though they received no monetary compensation for the task of motherhood. The exactness of the statistic is not all that relevant. It is important, however, to recall as best we can just how dark and deep the great depression truly was.

From the incessant complaining, one might suspect that we are in the midst of a second depression. Three dollars a gallon for gas. Oh the calamity. If the appeal to history is inadequate to quell the whining, perhaps a cursory stroll through a third world country will cause Americans to count their blessings.

This is not to say that gas prices are not high, or that the high prices are actually "good", whatever that would mean. High prices do provide a disincentive to drive more than is necessary, and thus, environmentalists should be pleased at the number of people utilizing alternative modes of transportation, though perhaps this group is less than numerically significant. I'm still skeptical on the whole issue of global warming, but gas prices at, say, ten dollars a gallon may just do our planet good. Of course, this is only a postulation, and while the collapse of the global economy might reduce the pollution which is caused by humans, even Al Gore is thinking that this might be a bit extreme.

And though it hardly constitutes a genuine tragedy, the alleged gouging at the pumps is unpleasant and immoral. I use alleged because though the profits of pariah du jour Exxon-Mobil are egregious, I can neither point to, nor invent for my own purposes, a standard for judging when profits cease to be a benefit of a capitalist system and instead become an evil excess. No reasonable person will actually defend as prudent a four hundred million dollar golden parachute. Contrarily, if surveys are to be believed, even middle class citizens pulling in sixty to ninety thousand dollars a year feel as if they do not have enough to make ends meet. The conundrum seems to be wrapped up more with the insatiability of human nature and less with objective economic theory.

Having thus dispelled, or at least explained away, the latest crisis, it may come as a surprise that the government is planning on doing something. The predictable and worse than futile movements of the government have ceased to surprise me long ago, and I am afraid that in short time they will cease even to interest me. Still, as an aspiring writer, it seems that our representatives provide ample opportunity to wax semi-eloquently, possibly even well enough to elucidate some fairly obvious point.

Even supposing that the federal government is not a pejorative force, a point I am not willing to concede, it must be admitted that the ability for all but the most despotic of regimes to act is limited, if not in power, at least in scope. Until the populace is stripped of all liberty, the government must either slowly chip away at these rights under the guise of necessity, or it must use the rights we have already forfeited against us. The most obvious application of the latter is the use of money which we have so graciously forfeited in the form of taxes, ostensibly for the public good. Thus, liberals and pseudo-conservatives will pray that the government intercede when it comes to education, health care, Katrina, and now, high gas prices.

It would be a humorous theme had its impact not been negated by too frequent use. The people are saved from this latest crisis by the return of money which belonged to them in the first place, to wit, a one hundred dollar rebate to offset the high cost of gas. It could be noted that many Americans do not pay federal income taxes, either because they do not make enough money or because they do not perform work which the market deems fit to honor with wealth; but this is beside the point as all but the most secluded of Americans pay gasoline taxes, if not directly, than implicitly through the purchase of products which have been marked up so as to offset the cost associated with fuel.

We must ignore for the moment that: A) Being preposterously in the red, the federal government is in no position to be handing out money. If the budget was balanced, I would prefer a tax cut rather than a rebate, but that is perhaps a personal opinion. B) One hundred dollars is unlikely to fill more than three tanks of gas, and though well-intended, the gesture seems more of an insult. If the government is intent on solving this supposed crisis, one would hope they would at least treat it as a genuine problem. Then again, throwing money at things is the Congressional way.

The larger point, however is that we should have no problem paying for gasoline. One has a choice of whether or not to use this product, and though one's hand may seem forced, if the need is great enough, alternative arrangements can be made which may at least soften the blow. For a gas tax is nothing more than a user fee. It is entirely reasonable for taxes on gas to provide for the roads upon which we all depend. Unlike an income tax, which ironically becomes more burdensome the more productive a worker is--becoming less dependent on the very things his taxes go to support--a user fee, like the gas tax, roughly justifies the amount of money paid with the use of the good or service. Due to varying mileage, the correlation is not exact, and though more equitable, a mileage tax would be harder to implement. What it lacks in true equity the gas tax makes up for in simplicity.

I offer these few thoughts for you to dwell on the next time you visit the pump. There are always going to be bigger fish to fry, and this is especially true in this case.