Blogger Smackdown!

Lileks takes issue with Andrew Sullivan's call for higher taxes on gasoline.

Is it just me, or is Sullivan starting to sound like Arianna Huffington? His argument against the regressiveness of such a tax is a side-step worthy of John Kerry:

In reality, it tends to affect the middle class more than anyone else, especially those in the suburbs with more than one car. The truly needy tend to consume less gas than their middle-class compatriots.

So loading another tax on the middle class is OK, because it doesn't hurt the "truly needy?" The question was whether it was regressive.

Others say it penalizes those in remote and rural areas. So what? Very few taxes are perfect, and our electoral system ? with its over-representation of big agricultural states in the Senate ? already pampers the rural. (I'd gladly exchange a gas-tax hike for abolition of agricultural subsidies. Any takers in Iowa?)

Or how about cutting social security benefits in exchange for a gas tax? Do you really think that he'd give up his support for new taxes if the government cut spending? That's not what he's proposing. The point of raising taxes on gas is to save the earth, reduce our dependence on the Saudis, etc. not to balance the budget. You don't achieve financial sanity in government by increasing taxes. He knows better than that.

Some conservatives say it's antithetical to the American Dream. Hooey. Conservatism in America rightly emphasizes personal responsibility alongside freedom.

What does raising gas taxes have to do with personal responsibility? He's proposing it precisely because he thinks we're not being responsible and must be punished to make us give up our "wanton consumption of gasoline."