<p>Xiggi - I wasn’t arguing with you, or projecting any particular opinions onto you. I appreciate that you’re investigating and thinking about this stuff, and I wouldn’t presume to pigeonhole you as holding particular views just because you don’t like Democrat politicians. (That kind of tactic is Driver’s territory.) </p>
<p>It’s an interesting thread you started back in 2004 (I didn’t read all of it.) But the “1968 liberals” article Driver linked to last week got me to thinking about the accusation that liberals “always” think that government intervention is best. You know, that is false - both as to the concept and the attribution of a belief in it to liberals. But the converse - that government involvement is always bad - is equally false as a generality, yet it seems at times as if it is uncritically believed by “non-liberals.” So I can’t agree with your proposition that all funds raised through a gas tax should be spent in the private sector, and none by government, for a couple of reasons. First, basic work is frequently done well by government agencies. (Consider the genesis of the Internet.) Second, the best answers to the energy and transportation problems may not be the ones which generate the most profits for large corporations. If not, they’re likely not merely to get short shrift, but to be the subject of negative propaganda and subtle PR designed to turn the public off to them. Consider: one very good means of generating electricity - pollution free, widely distributed so as to help balance the grid, and generating power at the peak power usage times (at least here in Califonia) is roof-mounted photovoltaic. The problem? It’s pretty simple technology. Once you get past the wafer manufacturing stage pretty much anyone can produce the panels and mount them on the buildings, and the electronic parts are close to commodity level, too. And once they’re installed, there’s no future income stream to anyone. So if no company can corner the market, the overall profit prospects for any company involved in the business, long term, aren’t really too dramatic, at least by Chevron/Exxon standards. Hydrogen, though, and the infrastructure and ongoing income stream from storing and supplying it - ahh, there’s something to bring a gleam to a venture capitalist’s eye. Which of those has gotten all the “sexy” press lately? And why do you suppose that is? </p>
<p>Public transportation, of the type taken for granted in a few highly urbanized areas of the US, and most of the rest of the industrialized world, may well be a part of the answer, but it typically isn’t a gold mine for the private sector. In order to be truly useful, public transportation needs to be built up to the point where people can actually rely on it to get them where they need to go, when they need to get there. That requires a significant commitment to consistent funding, which never seems to happen here. But a lot of money is spent on sexy car ads touting the latest SUV every time you turn on your TV. Battery powered electric cars - Did you know that there was a waiting list for the darn things while they were (briefly) available? That electric RAV-4’s - the only commercial model you could actually buy - are being resold for a $20,000+ premium over gas models? So why does everyone have this vague understanding that they were discontinued because there was “no demand” for them? GM’s EV-1 could only be leased, and when the leases were up, they wouldn’t let anyone keep them, but took them out in the desert and crushed them. What was that all about, anyway? The government didn’t make them do it.</p>
<p>So, bottom line, like most things, there’s a balance to be struck. Don’t dogmatically cling to one answer to a large and complex problem. Chances are the answer will involve many and varied elements. In this case, involvement of both private and public sectors.</p>
<p>As to “drastic reduction in government spending and a privatization of all non-essential services”<br>
Here’s a link to a site with a nice bar chart of federal expenditures: <a href=“federalbudget.com - federalbudget Resources and Information.”>federalbudget.com - federalbudget Resources and Information.; (I’m not endorsing the site - I haven’t even figured out exactly what it is they’re for and against - but the bar chart is nice.) Look that over, and ask yourself just how much you would “reduce the size of government” even if you closed everything you considered “non-essential.” </p>
<p>How much do you propose to spend on education? Through what level? K-12? BA? Doctoral? Preschool?</p>
</p>