I want to highlight something Art Vandolay says here, because it’s a recurring theme, something we’ve addressed before and something that’s going to crop up again and again and again as we go down the road.
Remarking on John McCain’s plan to let states decide if they want drilling offshore, Art says:
McCain wants to allow states to drill if they want - and they share in the revenue.
Should we be blessed with a John McCain presidency, and this becomes policy, I’ve no doubt many states will opt into this - specifically because of the revenue.
But states do a lot of things these days specifically for the revenue - don’t they?
Lotteries exist specifically for the revenue. Otherwhise, who’s going to foot the bill to “benefit senior citizens?” Not the general public, which already feels overtaxed.
Why has Pennsylvania legalized gambling? In large part, for the revenue - and, mind you, this isn’t an argument against gambling itself, because I’m of the mind that if people want to gamble, the state really shouldn’t be stepping in as nanny saying, no no. But were it not for the fact that Pennsylvania was looking to provide some sort of property tax relief - and the only other source of additional revenue was, once again, you and me - then we might not have legalized gaming. But Pennsylvania needed the revenue. End of story.
This is the reason Gov. Rendell wants to lease the Turnpike, isn’t it?
I’ve commented that once the federal government - or perhaps individual states - ultimately decriminalizes/legalizes drugs like marijuana, it will probably be for the revenue. Think of the money a tax on dope would generate! Think of the things we could do with that money! Things we will never be able to do unless we take some big step, like legalization of at least some drugs. Because you and I aren’t going to cough up the money necessary for these public programs. And if they are to exist - and don’t we want them - then the cash’ll have to come from somewhere.
As we go along, as the need for new governmental revenue gets greater but we the people continue to balk at paying higher taxes and furnishing that revenue, states or the federal government itself will find itself driven to seek new sources. The possibility of permitting offshore drilling - for a cut of the pie! - will be just too good to turn down. And so I would be surprised if any of the coastal states would actually do so; or, check that. People of means in those states, who are genuinely concerned about environmental impacts, will protest it. Those who are not of means, and who want the cheaper gas/lower taxes, will be all for it -as will the pols.
But there is a broader reason not to do this, beyond environmentalism. If we are on the far side of the bell curve of the age of oil, we may need to develop additional sources but must also, in conjunction with that, spend equally as much energy or more so on alternative strategies. Or changing the way we live in order to accommodate to the new reality. I’m not into the Easter Island strategy; I’m not into this, let’s cut every last tree/drill in every last spot so we can keep the ball rolling - and then what?
Yet the need for revenue, that simple hunger, may make the long view moot. Who cares if it’s the wisest action, it provides money today. Now. And so we don’t have to go ask the taxpayers for more, which would be political suicide, or force the taxpayers to make a decision; either these programs that you want are too expensive and we can’t afford them, or we can afford them - if you pay more in taxes.
We want what we want, and what we want is the free lunch. And so we’ll have that, please - with a side order of environmental degregation, or whatever else comes down the pike.
