Besides the usual banter about the federal government sleeping with big oil, is it counterproductive for the government to push measures to conserve energy?
At stake is federal tax revenue collected on gasoline. Any law the government pushes to increase fuel mileage cuts into federal taxes. The federal fuel tax pretty much goes unnoticed by the American public. The loss of revenue, however, might have to be made up in higher taxes somewhere else more noticeable.
Do you think this creates a conflict for congress?
2007-02-06 08:03:44 · 4 answers · asked by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Take a look at what Nixon did in Aug. 1971., you will see how big a conflict of interest it is, actually.
I won't give any links, because I do not want to slant your point of view anymore than giving you a search parameter.
Nixon + Dollar + Oil Standard
You will find a plethora of links to this subject.
You should also find how this will tie into the nature of your questions.
2007-02-06 08:17:16 · answer #1 · answered by eks_spurt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
I don't personally think the consumer should have their gasoline consumption taxed since it's pretty much a necessity in most areas.
Edit: To clarify... the state of public transportation in most areas of the country is horrible. The only option for employment for people is travel via a car.
Gasoline is as essential as food, clothing, and shelter.
2007-02-06 16:10:40 · answer #2 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am sure there are a bunch of reasons. And yes it creates a conflict but thats what we put them in office for, to work through the conflicts and come up with something better.
2007-02-06 16:08:22 · answer #3 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Interesting observation. I never thought about that. I wouldn't put it past our pols to see it that way.
2007-02-06 16:08:34 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋