Try our new homepage
Forums
RSS
Email this page to your friend:
Is it heat of the moment in the post-Katrina, pre-Rita calamity? Or do Americans really believe that we should fix our energy problems by taxing corporations more for doing what corporations are meant to do – make money?
That’s the big question left by the release of a new poll from the Web site www.40MPG.com and the Civil Society Institute, which enlisted the Opinion Research Corp. to conduct a poll on American attitudes toward price gouging and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Of note: the Web site and the Institute profess to being nonpartisan. However, a quick read of the Institute’s Web site, reveals a host of pet causes including global warming and universal healthcare that would hardly be keynote speeches at a Republican or Libertarian political gathering.
Regardless of orientation, some of the survey’s findings have a ring of credence. They do seem to have been worded to wring out emotional responses from those polled, however. Nine out of ten respondents said they believed oil companies were gouging customers, while four out of five said the government wasn’t doing enough about high prices and American energy dependence on the Middle East.
Taking on the question of price gouging alone is a difficult one in times like this, because charges of price gouging are inevitably an emotional reaction to the pocketbook squeeze. To some, price gouging is a symptom of a market economy run amok. But this survey doesn’t ask these critical questions in the right way. What is price gouging? Prominent libertarian critics like talk radio star and Fair Tax author Neal Boortz would say there is no such thing. And when people complain about high gas prices, they forget decades of cheap gas just past. The facts are that America has the most extensive energy platform in the world and has had energy cheaper than some countries awash in oil. In this deadly hurricane season, no one has had the chance to ask who will pay to rebuild the damaged drilling platforms in the Gulf, or to stitch together the net of pipelines ruptured during last year’s Hurricane Ivan and worked over more by Katrina. Or, who pays for the exploration that busts without a single barrel being pumped from the ground.
Other questions in the 40MPG survey appear more reasonable—until you deconstruct them. The survey says three of four Americans say the price hikes make it more important that the government boost fuel efficiency standards. And four out of five say that American companies should follow Toyota’s lead and convert their fleets to hybrid power. It’s difficult to argue with these contentions, unless you believe in free markets. In thirty years of fuel-economy mandates, buying habits haven’t changed in the U.S. In fact, buyers have shown their predilection for vehicles that get about the same gas mileage, on average, as they did when CAFE came into being.
As TCC’s Mike Davis reminds me, nobody wants to drive the vehicles that get 40 mpg today, with the possible exception of the Toyota Prius. “One of the few legitimate 40-mpg cars was the Toyota Echo which they pulled from the market a few months ago because they couldn't give them away. I want to see ANY 40 mpg vehicle hauling a trailer, not to mention a family with three children and luggage,” Davis says.
Lastly, it’s hard to imagine the logical contortions surveyors had to engage in to get the right answer to the question of oil company profits. According to the survey, 76 percent of people who identify themselves as Republicans would support "a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies" if the money was spent on alternative energy research. Is there a disconnect here in the their interpretation of Republicanism? Or is there some secret cache of voters who really believe in less government and less friction for business AND believe that a “windfall” of profits is something to be taxed?
Numbers like these should make us all think about how snap polls can inaccurately portray a situation and the true sentiments of the public. Or the motivations of the people who ask the questions.
That’s the big question left by the release of a new poll from the Web site www.40MPG.com and the Civil Society Institute, which enlisted the Opinion Research Corp. to conduct a poll on American attitudes toward price gouging and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Of note: the Web site and the Institute profess to being nonpartisan. However, a quick read of the Institute’s Web site, reveals a host of pet causes including global warming and universal healthcare that would hardly be keynote speeches at a Republican or Libertarian political gathering.
Regardless of orientation, some of the survey’s findings have a ring of credence. They do seem to have been worded to wring out emotional responses from those polled, however. Nine out of ten respondents said they believed oil companies were gouging customers, while four out of five said the government wasn’t doing enough about high prices and American energy dependence on the Middle East.
Taking on the question of price gouging alone is a difficult one in times like this, because charges of price gouging are inevitably an emotional reaction to the pocketbook squeeze. To some, price gouging is a symptom of a market economy run amok. But this survey doesn’t ask these critical questions in the right way. What is price gouging? Prominent libertarian critics like talk radio star and Fair Tax author Neal Boortz would say there is no such thing. And when people complain about high gas prices, they forget decades of cheap gas just past. The facts are that America has the most extensive energy platform in the world and has had energy cheaper than some countries awash in oil. In this deadly hurricane season, no one has had the chance to ask who will pay to rebuild the damaged drilling platforms in the Gulf, or to stitch together the net of pipelines ruptured during last year’s Hurricane Ivan and worked over more by Katrina. Or, who pays for the exploration that busts without a single barrel being pumped from the ground.
Other questions in the 40MPG survey appear more reasonable—until you deconstruct them. The survey says three of four Americans say the price hikes make it more important that the government boost fuel efficiency standards. And four out of five say that American companies should follow Toyota’s lead and convert their fleets to hybrid power. It’s difficult to argue with these contentions, unless you believe in free markets. In thirty years of fuel-economy mandates, buying habits haven’t changed in the U.S. In fact, buyers have shown their predilection for vehicles that get about the same gas mileage, on average, as they did when CAFE came into being.
As TCC’s Mike Davis reminds me, nobody wants to drive the vehicles that get 40 mpg today, with the possible exception of the Toyota Prius. “One of the few legitimate 40-mpg cars was the Toyota Echo which they pulled from the market a few months ago because they couldn't give them away. I want to see ANY 40 mpg vehicle hauling a trailer, not to mention a family with three children and luggage,” Davis says.
Lastly, it’s hard to imagine the logical contortions surveyors had to engage in to get the right answer to the question of oil company profits. According to the survey, 76 percent of people who identify themselves as Republicans would support "a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies" if the money was spent on alternative energy research. Is there a disconnect here in the their interpretation of Republicanism? Or is there some secret cache of voters who really believe in less government and less friction for business AND believe that a “windfall” of profits is something to be taxed?
Numbers like these should make us all think about how snap polls can inaccurately portray a situation and the true sentiments of the public. Or the motivations of the people who ask the questions.
7 Responses to “40-MPG Site Says Americans Want More Taxes”
Fred
September 23rd, 2005 - 3:54 pmSo I guess we are to believe that TCC is a Republican oriented organization? Based on the fact that there was no byline on this article on your main web page, or any indication that the piece was an opinion (nor does the construction of the article appear to be an opinion), one is forced to come to the conclusion, as I did, that the piece speaks for TCC. Very disappointing. I’ve have been reading your website daily for over three years, and even though there is an occaisional right-ward slant, I didn’t consider the organization to share in the current White House adminitration’s “distort, lie, manipulate” mantra when dealing with the public. Case in point: “… nobody wants to drive the vehicles that get 40 mpg today…”, stated as if it were fact. Well yeah, maybe nobody in your statistically invalid sample - most likely made up of people you know, etc. But the facts disagree; Cars, besides the Prius, that get 40mpg ARE in demand - and are selling well. Your problem, like many neo-conservatives today (not to be confused with true conservatives of 30yrs ago), is that you don’t believe people can, or want to, change. Well, keep believing that, and watch as your Big 3 continue to lose market share because “people don’t want to drive 40mpg cars, don’t want hybrids, don’t care about gas mileage, can’t stop driving SUV’s, etc, etc.”.
ruggels
September 25th, 2005 - 12:09 pmOdd… my 2004 Jetta TDI can carry a family of four and our stuff and still manage over 40mpg. my 2005 Passat TDI comes close at around 38mpg on the freeway, and typically 35mpg combined. I’ll be buying another Jetta TDI (2005) which lists an epa of mid to high 40’s on the freeway, though I expect to get around 40-43. It too can hold a family of four and their gear, and is notibly larger then my 2004. Then there’s the A8 TDI which we can’t have in north america, top gear had it up to 44mpg, and there’s no doubt it’ll hold a family of four and ALL their gear. But, with the exception of the A8, the jetta and passat are hardly barn stormers… but then again, with gas at $3/gallon, getting above 40 mpg on the freeway and close in town is fine by me. it’s a pitty none of the american brands have any TDI type powerplants in wide spread usage here.
Timo
September 26th, 2005 - 1:41 pmWow. I don’t expect full-out attack pieces from TCC. An awful lot of rigor went into “debunking” this poll. Keep up this kind of “reporting,” and you will drive me away from your traditionally good site in no time.
I have never seen a more leading and emotionally charged series of statements on this site. To wit:
“40-MPG Site Says Americans Want More Taxes
“Is it heat of the moment in the post-Katrina, pre-Rita calamity? Or do Americans really believe that we should fix our energy problems by taxing corporations more for doing what corporations are meant to do – make money?”
I mean, wow. Read that as many times as it takes you to realize these are not neutral statements. Inflammatory. I am very disappointed in TCC, and Marty Padgett in particular, who did not take responsibility for writing the piece on the non-blog page. You don’t credit an opinion piece like that to the “TCC Team.”
And then to end with this:
“Numbers like these should make us all think about how snap polls can inaccurately portray a situation and the true sentiments of the public. Or the motivations of the people who ask the questions.”
Flip that one in the mirror.
I have this right don’t I?: TCC is based in Vermont and has little contact with automakers? Is that the situation? So there is no conflict of interest here?
Just, wow.
Mark
September 26th, 2005 - 11:19 pmWow, Timo and Fred can suck a big fat tailpipe. You bring nothing but your own bias and bigotry.
So you disagree with Marty, good. I’m glad you disagree because discourse is always good. Hell, I disagree with him too. Sadly though you add nothing to this discussion but stupidity. You ramble on and quote but you don’t say where he’s wrong or how he was unfair. You just disagree with him for whatever reasons you hold. So Fred believes 40 mpg sell and then goes on the personal attack claiming Marty must have used a small sample (his friends) to come to that determination. Hey Fred did you ever think that perhaps your circle of friends are of a specific type who like to purchase 40 mpg+ vehicles? Marty even pointed on in the op-ed that the Echo got 40 mpg and no one bought it. Sure, it was a crap car, but how about almost a million F-150s sold each year? Or 800K+ Silverados/Sierras sold? Why are you the norm and Marty the complete arse?
If the editorial was the opposite (ie attacking supposed liberal premises) would you have reacted in the same way? I’m guessing not because you have your own pre-determined way of thinking that can’t be swayed by even hurricanes. I think Marty asked a lot of good questions like “What questions were asked in the poll?” and “Why do the poll now?”
You could have challenged him on other aspects but instead you just rant and rave and call Marty a coward. Shame on you.
Timo
September 27th, 2005 - 6:35 amThank you, Mark.
So, you show that you dislike perceived ranting and raving and personal attacks by using ranting and raving and potty-mouthed personal attacks? I’d have gone a different direction with that.
Discourse is indeed good. And you disagree with Marty, you say?
I’m keen to hear how you disagreed. Please, share your honest reaction to the article, and not just the other posters. Add to the discussion. That’s why it’s here.
Hemidakota
October 5th, 2005 - 7:00 pmToyota Prius (Echo based vehicle) is currently the automotive industry joke when the cars of the latter part of the 1980s gasoline driven vehicles (Rabbit, Civic, and so on) were getting the same or better gas MPG than current stolen German Hybrid patents by Toyota. Yes, they are currently being sued for using someone else’s hybrid technology patents.
Go back to last month revealed AutoBlog news on the S class four-door Turbo Diesel Euro tests that gets around 70-MPG. No hybrid system is being used here. “Yes Toyota! We have ignorant Americans that are moronic fools that will purchase anything that is hyped advertisement.”
If the current consumer is that ignorant in thinking that the end to all saving is the Hybrid, you are seriously mistaken. It is not Hybrid but Hydrogen and then Fusion. Maybe that is why Toyota has a Fusion Lab in France and quickly hired those two professors from Utah after the media frenzy with Cold Fusion in producing such vehicle propulsion.
The article is correct, as I driving in the fast lane in Southern California in a real car, seeing a pathetic Prius in the using this lane, with the right hand, waving to the moronic fool to move the heap of material called a Prius into the slow lane so the backed up traffic behind him can travel more than usual 80-85MPH speed limit.
Maybe a liberal owner in perpetuating his stupidity on the road.
ydearodrff
October 24th, 2005 - 7:38 pmThat is pathetic!, We want more taxes? What rich moron wrote that? Oh yeah after katrina were all lobbying to have ourselves taxed even more,… Thats why I see wall to wall V-8’s and SUV’s lining ever car dealership (which they cannot sell).
Hello!… Katrina was a wake up call for the country! It opened our eyes to what is coming with depleteing fuel reserves, ect. Being the sole bread winner in a 5 member family. I had to rethink my spending! And yes you couldnt find a geo metro to save your life!
Get alife ppl,… if you beleive that taxing things fixes all,… your probably on someones payrole, and probably interviewed 3 millionaires, with all their money stuffed into tax deferred accounts!
Jees, give us all a break and dont have an opinion about anything anymore
lol
Submit Comment