. . . nobody rides for free.

I know I threatened to talk about the hysteria surrounding the recent hikes in gasoline prices. Because of the nature of my job, I decided not to post an opinion on any proposed legislation [state or federal] related to a temporary suspension of gas taxes. The Charles Krauthammer article that Eric pointed to in comment to the previous post just about covers that.

Krauthammer. What a name!

I think it's safe to talk about the silly civilian reaction to sudden spikes in gas prices. The expectation or belief that their legislative heroes can just wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down is crazy. As Krauthammer[!] writes, even a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would cost billions. In other words, it's not free. Somebody must be taxed to pay for it. So why not tax the big oil companies? Well, if giving the big oil companies big tax breaks [reducing costs of operations] didn't result in cheaper gasoline, then I can't see how a "windfall profits" tax [increasing costs of operations] is going to help. But it still sounds like a good idea to most citizens, and they're going to be a bit sore when it doesn't happen.

I was listening to local talk radio, early this week, and I heard one listener [caller] complain that, due to the nearly $3/gallon gas prices, she was having to take time to plan out her errands to reduce car trips in order to conserve gas and save money. If you're a workin' class Joe [or Joann] with budgetary concerns, then shouldn't you be doing that anyway? Even if gas was $1.50/gallon, it would make sense.

There is hope. I've noticed a considerable change in driver behavior on my work commute: the number of motorists driving like assholes has gone way down. I know I've eased off the go pedal a bit [although I drive like a grandma, anyway]. If high gas prices encourage people to drive carefully to conserve gas, then maybe it's not such a bad thing. The potential benefits: reduced traffic accidents, improved traffic flow, reduced emissions--all good things.