Roy Maynard: Early Returns

I do love a tax cut. Both in principle and in practice, my heart sings at the thought of giving the government less of my money.

“That’s less of my money going to support the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, research on the olive fruit fly, and berry research in Alaska,” I tell myself.

At the same time, I must confess that lately I’ve disliked filling up my gas tank. At prices rising above $3.50 per gallon (as of Friday), even the little Saturn I bought to replace my gas-guzzling SUV requires an investment of more than $35 to fill the tank.

So why can’t I seem to get behind the proposal from Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton to suspend the federal gas tax this summer?

First, it would not be an insignificant savings for me, personally. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, according to my petroleum go-to guy.

All week, I have been watching my gas gauge and my personal consumption. With my 16-mile commute into town for work each day, a few errands while I’m here (averaging about 6 miles per day), and the 16-mile trip home, I’ve been driving about 38 miles each weekday. Let’s round that up to 40 per day to account for unexpected trips (such as late-afternoon coffee runs).

My weekend travel is far less extensive, say 20 miles over Saturday and Sunday.

That gives me a weekly total of 240 miles, or 2,880 miles during the three-month period the politicians are proposing for the tax suspension.

Estimating a tad conservatively, my Saturn has been getting about 15 miles per gallon — meaning during coming summer, I can expect to buy about 192 gallons of gas.

So what would my savings be? About $35, according to my math. Total.

Second, the proposals are vague. Under Sen. Clinton’s plan, the oil companies would be forced to pony up the money through a windfall profits tax. There’s no doubt in my mind the oil companies would promptly pass this cost along to consumers (me), so chances are I’d end up paying it anyway.

Under Sen. McCain’s proposal the feds would simply forego the revenues. The government would be out the money.

But see, that money is dedicated to one of the few purposes I sincerely feel is an appropriate function of government: roads. Sure, cut off funding for berry research in Alaska (note to government scientists: berries won’t grow there, you dorks, it’s Alaska! Please send me the remainder of your research funds). But, by all means, fix the highways.

Next, I don’t trust either the oil companies or OPEC. They’re not in business to save me or anyone else money. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

And if Congress were to pass legislation in an attempt to force the firms to pass along the savings, we would no longer be talking about a minor temporary tax cut; we would be talking about government price controls. And that’s what got us into trouble in the 1970s, when we had lines at the gas pumps.

Finally, I don’t trust the motives of those pushing the proposal. Both of the senators are candidates for president. That fact doesn’t make the proposal wrong, in and of itself, but it makes me stop and wonder what’s behind it.

Sen. Barack Obama, the one major presidential candidate who hasn’t endorsed the plan, might just have a point.

“This isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer,” Obama says. “It’s designed to get them through the election.”

Yes, I feel the pain at the pumps. But let’s look to real solutions to a simple supply-and-demand problem. Let’s focus on increasing supply (how about some additional drilling and refining capacity?), or on reducing demand.

I hear there are some soon-to-be unemployed government researchers up in Alaska. What if we put them to work abating any environmental impact of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge so we could tap some of that oil? We could tell them there are berries there!

Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.

Roy Maynard
()