Archives

Mulally stopped short of endorsing the tax increase proposed by US Rep. Dingell (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/gas_ford.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Ford_President_Alan_Mulally.jpgJoe Benton – ConsumerAffairs.com – August 8, 2007

As U.S. consumers struggle with near-record gasoline prices, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally said a proposal for a 50-cent per gallon gasoline tax is "interesting" and might help ease dependence on imported oil.

If the 50-cent tax were in place now the average price of a gallon of regular self serve gasoline would be $3.32, ten cents higher that the previously recorded record-high price set May 24.

Mulally stopped short of endorsing the tax increase proposed by U.S. Representative John Dingell, D-Michigan. Mulally said a gas tax rise would be one method to include consumer choice in the debate over how to improve fuel efficiency in the United States.

Ford, General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and Toyota Motor Corp. have all joined in an effort to defeat the fuel economy increase approved by the Senate in June, which calls for automakers to hit a standard of 35 mpg by 2020.

Of all of the automakers, Ford has the most at risk with higher fuel economy demands. The company relies heavily on sales of fuel-hungry trucks to make money. The Ford F150 pickup is the top-selling vehicle in the country at 19 miles per gallon on the highway.

Dingell is the most powerful auto industry ally in Congress and devotes much of his time and power to the task of protecting automakers from federal mandates and regulation.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/gas_ford.html

Mullaly will push Ford towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. Higher gasoline taxes would take the risk out of doing that, and ensure that the fickle car-buying public actually buys the fuel-efficient vehicles in the planning stages.

Sure, this makes sense for a car company that is serious about fuel-efficiency.

Harry

Gas tax will only line the pockets of bureaucrats. It wont do a thing for the country.

Whats happened to all the tax money thats been paid since the 50's for roads. Last I saw a bridge fell down.

Rest my case.

Unfortunately for the car companies, such a gas tax might persuade some people to stop driving altogether instead of buying a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. I'm sure that's not the kind of "consumer choice" Mulally is thinking of.

Hi All:

___Mulally took Boeing to a new level with higher FE for the Dreamliner and he would not have endorsed this idea (well kind of anyway ;)) unless he has some serious stuff in the works. They did not pay him a huge chuck of change to be Ford’s poster boy … Well they did but I bet he has something up his sleeve none of us have even a clue about. I can only hope?

___Tarabell, nice find!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Whats happened to all the tax money thats been paid since the 50's for roads. Last I saw a bridge fell down.



In New York, the "dedicated highway fund" isn't as dedicated as it ought to be, and is raided to fund other government activities. I am reminded of this by an article in the newspaper yesterday, in which as a response to the bridge collapse, a new law is being proposed that the dedicated highway fund actually be used entirely for road and bridge work. Imagine that!

Harry

Mulally stopped short of endorsing the tax increase proposed by U.S. Representative John Dingell, D-Michigan.

This is some interesting game Dingell is playing here. In a C-Span interview last month he basically admitted his purpose for the tax proposal was to prove it would never pass:

SWAIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to your statement that the American people want action. Does that also correlate with the American people being willing to pay higher prices, because of energy legislation?

DINGELL: I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them. I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people really feel about this. And it will impose, for example, on gasoline a 50 cent tax. It also will place a very substantial tax on CO2 emissions, amounting to a double-digit tax on tons of CO2 emitted.

And I think, when you see the criticism I get, you’ll understand that you will be getting the answer to your question.

http://www.c-span.org/newsmakers/dingell.htm

Most Democrats support a cap and trade approach, not a carbon tax, so this would seem designed to sabotage his own party's effort. According to some bloggers I've read, Dingell knows Americans don't understand cap-and-trade, but do understand a tax. By confusing the concepts he may be hoping the public will block aggressive legislation against GW. And that way also block CAFE standards from being raised when that comes up again. (Wouldn't it be something if this backfired on him and it got passed? :p)

But discussion of a tax like this raises the likelihood that good GW legislation will get derailed. Everyone loves to attack the Democrats for raising taxes, and they could have a field day with this.

The other thing Dingell nearly got away with was a bill to override CA's attempt to ability to regulate auto emissions. That was when he went on my siht list. Pelosi shut down that attempt. I hope he's not on any more energy committees in the next congress. :(

This is some interesting game Dingell is playing here. In a C-Span interview last month he basically admitted his purpose for the tax proposal was to prove it would never pass.

...........

But discussion of a tax like this raises the likelihood that good GW legislation will get derailed. Everyone loves to attack the Democrats for raising taxes, and they could have a field day with this.

...............

:(

It might be packaged with a popular counter-balancing tax cut funded by the revenue, but I think the fossil fuel industry is too influential to let that happen.

A 50 cent tax might help pay for some infrastructure improvements and will discourage consumption a bit, but it won't raise prices by 50 cents. Last I checked, markets were subject to demand elasticity. As prices go up, people consume less, partially offsetting the price increase. After a reasonable period of time has passed, a 50 cent tax increase might result in a price 25-35 cents higher than before.

The other 15-25 cents will come out of the oil companies' pockets (as they get less money for their product), not consumers'. Why do you think oil companies always oppose gas taxes? If it came entirely out of consumers' pockets, you'd better believe they wouldn't give a rip.