Krauthammer Proposes a Gas Tax

Charles Krauthammer has the cover article in the upcoming Weekly Standard. He suggests that the extreme oil price collapse presents a "once in a generation" chance to impose a gas tax.

Here is how it works. The simultaneous enactment of two measures: A $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax--together with an immediate $14 a week reduction of the FICA tax. Indeed, that reduction in payroll tax should go into effect the preceding week, so that the upside of the swap (the cash from the payroll tax rebate) is in hand even before the downside (the tax) kicks in.
The math is simple. The average American buys roughly 14 gallons of gasoline a week. The $1 gas tax takes $14 out of his pocket. The reduction in payroll tax puts it right back. The average driver comes out even, and the government makes nothing on the transaction. (There are, of course, more drivers than workers--203 million vs. 163 million. The 10 million unemployed would receive the extra $14 in their unemployment insurance checks. And the elderly who drive--there are 30 million licensed drivers over 65--would receive it with their Social Security payments.)
Revenue neutrality is essential. No money is taken out of the economy. Washington doesn't get fatter. Nor does it get leaner. It is simply a transfer agent moving money from one activity (gasoline purchasing) to another (employment) with zero net revenue for the government.

To Krauthammer the benefits of a gas tax are "blindingly obvious" and include things like putting pressure on OPEC, and crippling the economies of Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. He notes that high gas prices also encourage fuel economy and reduce pollution.

I'm still mulling this over, but my first instinct is that this is a bad idea. Krauthammer acknowledges that the program will need a yearly adjustment to match the FICA rebate-that's-not-really-a-rebate with (assumed) falling average gasoline consumption. In other words, it will require Congress or an executive body to act every year.

More than that, what reason do we have to believe that if we give our assent to this now, future Congresses will keep the gas tax linked to a FICA rebate? I suspect that once acclimated to a gas tax, Congress will go right on upping payroll taxes--especially since a Social Security emergency is hanging over our heads. In fact, Congress can announce it's annual FICA gas-tax rebate and in the next breath regretfully pass a "planned increase" in payroll taxes to combat a shortfall in revenue. Money is fungible.

Also, Krauthammer's tax is focused on individual drivers. He spends one paragraph noting that special cases like truck drivers and others who drive long distances might need their own separate program for relief with a "small bureaucracy" to handle the paperwork. On the one hand, we might largely avoid that problem by exempting diesel from the proposed tax. If we don't make such an exemption (as Krauthammer seems to imply), anything that is shipped by truck will see a corresponding increase in price. Reducing the driver's FICA tax isn't going to help the rest of us with that.

In short, Krauthammer's net-zero gas tax is setting off warning bells. Click over and read the whole thing. It's long, but worth some consideration. What do you think about it?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:13 PM

Comments

It is fucking insane and Krauthammers neo conservative liberal skirt is showing. Imposing a tax on this economy to give more money to the fucking Federal Government right when a bunch of liberals are taking over is just about the stupidest fucking suggestion to come around.

Conservatives believe in low taxes, reducing government spending and not using the Government to modify my behavior regarding what the fuck I want to drive.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 27, 2008 12:17 PM (DLJPO)

2 We need to dump assholes like Krauthammer. We don't need anyone who has been mugged by reality...we need folks who knew right from the start that socialism and big government were a bad idea.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 27, 2008 12:19 PM (DLJPO)

3 I think I'm glad that CK is not in charge of energy taxes/policies. He's just another fucking Washington talking head trying to sell print.

Posted by: predator at December 27, 2008 12:20 PM (CCCU0)

4 How about a wheelchair tax instead.

Posted by: Ostral B Heretic at December 27, 2008 12:22 PM (id7IM)

5 Charlie don't surf... and Krauthammer don't drive.

Posted by: rickinstl at December 27, 2008 12:22 PM (d8T1t)

Krauthammer's finally lost all touch with reality. Declining exports from producers such as Mexico, Norway, and Saudi Arabia will take care of the "pricing" as soon as the recession ends. (without the need for a "Small" Bureaucracy.

The guys getting Nuttier with every passing year.

Posted by: Rufus at December 27, 2008 12:24 PM (gXwJD)

7

Krauthammer is an idiot.

(There are, of course, more drivers than workers--203 million vs. 163 million. The 10 million unemployed would receive the extra $14 in their unemployment insurance checks. And the elderly who drive--there are 30 million licensed drivers over 65--would receive it with their Social Security payments.)

And how do high school and college students (and lots of other people) get compensated? I used to think Krauthammer was a pretty smart guy. Maybe he was, but at this point he's clearly lost his mind.

Posted by: Tinian at December 27, 2008 12:25 PM (Ohodx)

8 There are other ways to pressure OPEC without this bait-and-switch scheme.

Such as say, I don't know, drill here, drill now!

Posted by: mitthrawnurdo at December 27, 2008 12:25 PM (otlXg)

9 No, no, no. Lots of unintended consequences here. And if gas prices increase, do you think the new higher gas taxes will ever decrease? Nope. Never.

Posted by: Lily at December 27, 2008 12:29 PM (C1j2O)

10 Krauthammer wants to use this to cripple OPEC, the Russkies, Hugo, Iran, et al., but isn't that happening already with low oil prices? It's putting a major pinch on all of the above.

Posted by: predator at December 27, 2008 12:30 PM (CCCU0)

I think that old neck injury is starting to screw up his brains. He should have staying in the preisthood.

The list of why this is so fucking stupid is very long.

First, FICA is going broke. Want to speed up the bankruptcy of the SS system? Reduce it's revenue.

Second, the tax in not uniform. The assholes in NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. won't pay it, the REPUBLICANS in the South and the West will. We drive, they don't.

Third, It will distort the purchases of cars and trucks, again artificially making them more expensive, again something urban dickheads in DC and NYC could give a shit about.

Fourth, increasing the transportation costs affects ALL consumers in an adverse way. It raises the cost of goods several times over and is inefficient.

Fifth, no enough, I not teaching Economics any more for free. You get the idea here, this guy is smoking the "Hope and Change" tax brand.

Milton is rolling over in his grave right now.

Kemp

Posted by: kempermanx at December 27, 2008 12:30 PM (2+9Yx)

Drill baby drill....

Not tax baby tax...when can we purge those fucking ex-liberals from the Republican party?

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 27, 2008 12:30 PM (DLJPO)

13 Dunno what it is but it seems like a substantial percentage of pundits hit a certain age and they slip their mental gears. It's become very obvious that the formerly sharp Krauthammer went over the cliff during the runup to this election.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at December 27, 2008 12:31 PM (YYanS)

14 Markets, shmarkets, I have a PLAN. It can't fail, I did the math.

Leave the fucking market alone, Chuck!

None of this stuff works. It always leads to more taxes, more government and worse economic conditions.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2008 12:34 PM (MQlrz)

15 Compassionate Conservatism 101: When the left proposes a command economy driven from Washington D.C., it's bad. But when "conservatives" advocate the same thing, it's good.

This is more of the same muddleheaded thinking that got us steel tariffs, Medicare Part D, illegal immigrants to do "jobs Americans won't do" and, ultimately, Bailoutpalooza 2008.

It's time for conservatives to once again stand athwart history and yell "Stop!" not tinker around the edges of me-too liberalism.

Posted by: Andy at December 27, 2008 12:34 PM (B+HYX)

16 How about we tax Charlie and his idiotic ilk by the written word. Ya like that one, Charlie?

Posted by: predator at December 27, 2008 12:35 PM (CCCU0)

17 Sure, that makes the best sense. Instead of cutting spending, government should collect more. That's completely logical, sure it is.

Come on, this is stupid, it's a bad idea to raise taxes when your government is already spending too much. It doesn't take even a moderately smart person to work that out.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 27, 2008 12:39 PM (PQY7w)

18 Government = friction.

There is NO WAY this is ever a lossless swap.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 27, 2008 12:39 PM (Z0HFQ)

19 What about people who don't pay FICA like say, I don't know, retired people, nonworking students, etc. What a fuckhead. No wonder the Republican Party is having problems with turd launchers like this.

Posted by: Laddy at December 27, 2008 12:39 PM (AUzci)

20 We have to seriously question the branding of talking heads. The crowd we have are not conservatives.

This incident makes me doubt that Mr. Krauthammer would echo Mr. Reagan's sentiment that government is not the solution, government is the problem. When talking heads start talking about raising taxes in anything but disparaging terms we have to think seriously about what exactly conservatism means.

If the Reagan Revolution is dead, I know one set of fingerprints on the knife sticking out of its back. It's not like I'm picking on Mr. Krauthammer (who I've previously been favorably inclined toward), we've got a systemic problem afflicting pretty much every commentator of note.

There seems to be something in the water at the National Review and Weekly Standard. Part of this is the neo-con phenomenon. We should have known we were screwed when the first neo-con said "big government conservatism" with a straight face. Mr. Bush and Mr. Krauthammer may say many things we like on many topics, but we can't call them conservatives. Remember when Tom DeLay said there was nothing in the federal budget to cut?

The "branding problem" in the Republican party goes deeper than the corruption of guys like Ted Stevens, it goes to the whole notion of what "conservatism" means. I'm not saying that the Republican party ought to kick out the big-government types, but we can't let them go around calling themselves conservatives.

You can be less liberal than Mao Tse Tung without being a conservative.

Posted by: Steve Poling at December 27, 2008 12:54 PM (UWHTf)

21 this is the key: Goverment is never the answer, Government IS the problem. At all levels.

Posted by: bob hussein dole at December 27, 2008 01:02 PM (yl9yA)

WTF? Where the hell did the conservative part of the Republican party go?

Here in DFW, we have a tollway that was supposed to switch to a regular public freeway once the tolls had paid for the costs of the construction. Hey, what do you know? That point came and went, and it's still a tollway because there are all kinds of gummint programs depending on that money.

When the gummint gets its hands on your wallet, it doesn't give it back.

Again, WTF? This guy's one of our "thinky-types"? Is his warranty busted?

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at December 27, 2008 01:05 PM (ltwze)

23 Here's an idea: instead of raising taxes to meet increased spending, how about a 5% spending cut across the board? Most of that could come from a payraise freeze for all non-military government employees, and closer control of consumables (travel vouchers/per diem, office supplies, etc.).

That would save roughly $100 Billion, and then we can start working for REAL cuts - like getting rid of Department of Education.

Posted by: Drumwaster at December 27, 2008 01:07 PM (Ymor3)

24 Krauthammer's been pimping this idea since at least 2001. Which just goes to show that even otherwise very smart people have a kernel of stupid somewhere.

Posted by: INCITEmarsh at December 27, 2008 01:09 PM (kbRPm)

In general I am in favor of higher gas taxes to do what C.K. says, hurt the oil producing countries who tend to be the bad guys but like most commentors say, we know the whole FICA rebate part would go away and the gas tax would not plus the whole need for exceptions for truckers and bigger government to manage it just makes this whole idea a cluster fuck and therefore I vote nay.

That being said, if someone came up with a plan that could set us on the course to be energy independent or better yet be the source of supply or technology for the planets energy, I would be first in line to vote yea because if we fix our energy independence issue, that solves so many other issues.

My idea, raise the gas tax somewhat, not a $1 a gallon, maybe just a few pennies and create a pool of R & D funds to find cheap renewable and clean energy. And those responsible for finding it get to keep the billions and billions in future tax proceeds.

Capitalism baby, works every time.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at December 27, 2008 01:16 PM (reApX)

26 i definitely prefer a gas tax to other forms of taxation since it amounts to a gas tax, but this is absolutely ludicrous. after the "worst economic disaster since the great depression" this jackass seriously wants to raise taxes on people who desperately need some sort of stimulus? this is the best damn stimulus you could ask for, and it's free. i think it would make more sense to impose a tariff of some sort on cartel oil nations' imports since that is hardly a free market system. it would necessitate the development of friendly and domestic sources of oil, or it would at least seriously challenge the price collusion going on with the OPEC thugs. these bastards have never offered the world anything more cheaper or more efficient or invented anything of use anywhere, and rich mineral resources in the hands of a few has only allowed a bunch of nutjobs to rule and enslave the people of the middle east.

Posted by: matt foley at December 27, 2008 01:18 PM (0JUiy)

I think y'all are being a little too hard on Charlie.

OPEC will set production levels to target a retail price range for consumers. How much of that money flows to OPEC or to the government depends on our tax policy. That's only partly true, of course, but it is true to some extent.

These sorts of even trades seem to fall in favor of the government, so I would adjust the deal to result in a tax break and I'd call that part a stimulus.

Posted by: steve o at December 27, 2008 01:19 PM (w7tri)

I generally like Krauthammer, and I'm surprised he doesn't know why a gas tax is a bad idea.

The market will not be fooled into producing alternative sources of energy by high prices due to taxes. No one will invest the billions necessary for alternative energy development when they can be undercut by the stroke of a pen.

If the high tax strategy worked, Europeans would be driving electric cars.

High gas taxes guarantee less investment in energy development, and longer dependency on imported oil.

Posted by: flan at December 27, 2008 01:19 PM (HFA4A)

29 correction:
gas tas -> use tax

Posted by: matt foley at December 27, 2008 01:19 PM (0JUiy)

30 Higher gas taxes here do not hurt OPEC.

We do not need to find cleaner energy sources.

Hydrocarbon energy sources are abundant enough in the USA to last for centuries and they do not cause uncontrollable pollution.

Burning hydrocarbons releases energy and produces water and carbon dioxide. You could not ask for a better energy source. Just ask the living things on Earth that have been using it for over 2 billion years.

The need for clean and renewable energy sources is a myth.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2008 01:24 PM (MQlrz)

31 I can't even begin to tell you how much I regret not voting for Bob Barr. Sure he's an idiot but at least he's not a fucking jackass.

Here's a quick rule of thumb when it comes to taxes...cut them. Anything else is liberalism dressed up in one form or another.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 27, 2008 01:24 PM (hlYel)

32 Part of the problem is that a lot of the "neocons" were never small government guys to begin with. Cutting taxes and strong military does not make you a conservative, it makes you a sort of anti-libertarian.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 27, 2008 01:24 PM (PQY7w)

33 Hey Chuck, don't like pollution? Move the hell out of Manhattan. Those of us in flyover country are not interested in your theoretical notions of a pristine environment. You want nature? Move to the country.

Oh, and the "payroll tax" is social security and medicare. If you want to make it welfare, fine, but a lot of the oldsters are still under the impression that they've paying in. That's why it's so "regressive".

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2008 01:29 PM (QfSNp)

34 I think this is a terrible idea. It puts money in the hands of libs in the big cities and punishes everybody who drives a car or is self-employed and thus doesn't have FICA deducted from his or her paycheck. I usually like Krauthammer, but I don't like this idea. Conservatives don't raise taxes.

Posted by: ladylawyer at December 27, 2008 01:37 PM (lXdU5)

35 Charlie's idea is so crazy, I'm surprised I didn't think of it.

Posted by: Crazy Joe Biden at December 27, 2008 01:41 PM (NLtVk)

36 "In general I am in favor of higher gas taxes to do what C.K. says, hurt the oil producing countries who tend to be the bad guys"

See, right here is where you lose me. It's like shooting yourself to hit the guy who's standing behind you.

Good lord! Gasoline for the first time in years is below $2/gallon, and Krauthammer wants to get it back up to $3!?! Imagine how expensive it would be the next time there's a ridiculous price surge like last Summer. $5/gallon!

Jonah Goldberg was pimping this nonsense, too, recently, snarking that Andrew Sullivan should note that they were on the same page the next time he smears Goldberg. I say that if you find you're on the same page as Andrew Sullivan, it's time to put the book down, dammit!

Posted by: Kensington at December 27, 2008 01:42 PM (fhJCy)

37 As was stated above, this "revenue neutral" scheme will transfer wealth from red state suburbanites to city dwellers.

I don't think it will do much to OPEC. If you are going to use a tax to significantly decrease oil consumption, it stands to reason that production will fall as well. But all oil is not the same when it comes to production. The most difficult-to-get oil will no longer be produced, while the easiest-to-get oil will still be produced at a level close to its current level. OPEC controls almost all of the world's easy-to-get oil, and may come out of all of this producing a greater share of the world's oil than they already do.

Even if OPEC production falls, do we really think OPEC is run by fools? They will adjust production to new market realities. They will simply set a production level that keeps the price of gas at no less than $3 (or however much the tax's target level is). They will never over produce and let Washington skim off the top.

Posted by: bunny boy at December 27, 2008 01:45 PM (YsSn7)

38 I saw on this morning's news that some retailers (no names were mentioned) might ask the messiah for a bailout. And ask him for 30 days of no sales tax. I believe it would be 10 days in March, July and October. In an attempt to boost sales. It was local Chicago news so of course the "expert" said tax holidays really don't work but the messiah's big govt. spending will really get the economy going.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 27, 2008 01:46 PM (pxoTV)

39 Conservatives have faith in freedom and markets.

They do not propose tax schemes to "fix problems".

KC is a Washington Insider. Be thankful that he is a GWOT hawk, but resist him when his Beltway disease flares up.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2008 01:49 PM (MQlrz)

40 The Best policy is the one we have now - tax breaks for renewables. We're, currently, running the equivalent of about 17 Million cars on ethanol. That's about 250 Million Barrels of Oil directly out of Saudi Arabia's ass.

Posted by: Rufus at December 27, 2008 01:55 PM (gXwJD)

41 Yep, the PRESSSSSident is ready to take over. Whatever the PRESSSSident calls for, so long as the PRESSSSidential cameras are around, elected gloryseeking pols will show up for facetime support of these PRESSSSIdential rantings.

Posted by: drfredc at December 27, 2008 02:01 PM (JbxXM)

42 There is no such thing as a "Small bureaucracy". They only come in two sizes: Large, and Beached Fucking Whale Size.

Once our government gets its hooks into a new higher tax, it NEVER gets removed.

Posted by: Unclefacts at December 27, 2008 02:01 PM (M+Vfm)

43 The Republican party is rotting from the brain down. Worse still, it is congratulating itself for the rot, and spitting nails at any one who might show any sign of reversing it. Good show syndicated Republican pundits...good show.

Posted by: The Obvious at December 27, 2008 02:09 PM (1g+FW)

44 Also, what's with Krauthammer's insistence on revenue neutrality? Since when do conservatives come down against government getting leaner?

That's the whole problem with our side right now! Put the damn thing on a diet!

Posted by: Kensington at December 27, 2008 02:11 PM (fhJCy)

45 Meanwhile, right on cue, Goldberg's pimping the column over at The Corner.

Out of touch imbeciles, both of them!

Posted by: Kensington at December 27, 2008 02:12 PM (fhJCy)

46 Why the fuck would a "conservative" want to penalize people based on how long their commute is? Especially in a recession, where a good job may be farther away and moving a prohibitive expense, especially for people upside-down on their houses (and who haven't abandoned their mortgages)?

It's just more redistribution, in favor of urbanites and against those who live outside city cores.

Krauthammer has "assimilated" into the beltway, bye-bye Charlie.

Posted by: Merovign at December 27, 2008 02:18 PM (or0jG)

If it is revenue neutral, what is the point? But because lazy welfare recipients get free money, it is just another welfare program in the end.

Does it really reduce gasoline consumption? I don't think so. To discourage consumption you would have to raise it higher.

If you want to raise revenue accross the broad spectrum and discourage use of oil you have to have an import tax on oil, say over $25 a barrel. That would help discourage oil consumption, and, of course, hit the economy hard.

This idea has all the brilliance of Jimmy Obamessiah.

Posted by: Federale at December 27, 2008 02:24 PM (H1JJq)

48 "Why the fuck would a "conservative" want to penalize people based on how long their commute is? Especially in a recession, where a good job may be farther away and moving a prohibitive expense, especially for people upside-down on their houses (and who haven't abandoned their mortgages)?"

No, no, I'm sure Chuck's got some complex formula for adjusting the FICA reductions and/or reducing the tax increase for people like that. You know, the kind of skull-cracking complexity that makes our current tax system such a joy already.

And I'm sure any sort of "fairness" adjustments would survive more than two seconds, too, before the Donks feel the craven uncontrollable compulsion to increase the payroll tax again whilst still bitterly complaining that the gas tax is too low.

I'm sure it will all be fine. Democrat government experts will handle it.

Posted by: Kensington at December 27, 2008 02:24 PM (fhJCy)

49 Well...CK has part of it right. The part where we replace existing taxes with a consumption tax. Only he is targeting the wrong part. Replace the income tax with a consumption tax. There are literally hundreds of billions of tax dollars never collected because of the underground economy. Under a consumption tax, those undeclared incomes will be taxed when they are spent. And what better way to encourage savings or investment than not taxing them - become a nation of equity again rather than a nation of debt. But, that is too logical and simple and we do need to keep the millions of tax consultants, tax accountants and tax attorneys gainfully employed, no don't we?

I can be in favor of this specific tax IF, instead of offsetting FICA, the funds go directly into subsidizing and streamlining the process for investment in more refineries and new drilling. Not one cent for exploration or subsidies for alternative energy sources. The way to target oppressive oil regimes is to go directly at them...more domestic oil.....more refineries, keeping the price of oil down on the world market.

Does anyone recall the law of unintended consequences? Remember the spike in fuel prices? Everything on the shelves in retail establishments went up an average of 20-25%. The highway trust fund had a shortfall in the billions of dollars due to the declining revenue in fuel taxes and many highway projects were halted due to lack of funding. That came about in a very short period of time.

Posted by: rls at December 27, 2008 02:24 PM (k4h7p)

50 "Smart people" are really good at coming up with stupid ideas.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2008 02:30 PM (D6ZSd)

I have been through this bait and switch routine several times before here. We�ll give you a rebate in property tax for an increase in the sales tax. So they raise sales tax by 1 cent and they give you back about 25 dollars. Never mind that the 1 cent increase probably cost you a couple of hundred dollars unless you purchased a number of big ticket items then it cost you a fortune.

But that is all well and good because they make up for it the next year when they raise property taxes and what ever small benefit you got is wiped out and you still have the extra 1 cent sales tax.

And that doesn�t begin to offset the inequities described in this tax. Like the bullshit gas tax 20% funding for inner city mass transit when they don�t pay the tax top begin with. Suburban and rural drivers pay for the mass transit and the city pukes take the money that they were spending on mass transit and move it to other socialist programs and graft.

Here we have 1 dollar extra tax for drivers and everybody but retired people get an offset. If the intent is to be revenue neutral it should be revenue neutral for all who pay. It should not be another damn redistribution from those who pay to those who don�t.

CK has become a socialist.

Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2008 02:41 PM (f6os6)

52 All this proves is that the taxes we pay have no correlation to the expense of running our government. It's simply a matter of what they can get away with before the people start to complain.

Posted by: Nyctalus Lasiopterus at December 27, 2008 03:13 PM (EPSru)

53 Why don't they just propose a new stamp act and get this ball rolling?

Posted by: Ostral B Heretic at December 27, 2008 03:22 PM (id7IM)

54 I propose Krauthammer devote his time and energies to playing chess; instead of dabbling in "once-in-a-generation" global strategic economic theory and domestic behavior-modification/taxation methodologies. *gasp*

Charlie, carrot or stick? Asswipe.

Posted by: The Krauthammer Doctrine at December 27, 2008 03:22 PM (3Bqev)

55 JB Hunt could not be reached for comment.

Posted by: pendejo grande at December 27, 2008 03:26 PM (tlpWV)

56 What about my "lawyer tax" idea?

It's so simple: The forces that slow down our economy and restrict entrepreneurship are in the legal profession. So, tax lawyers. Tax a bar license, tax legal fees, tax law school tuition.

It has an additional benefit of shifting people from the leech-like legal legions to more difficult and socially beneficial academic pursuits -- like mathematics, physics, etc.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2008 03:36 PM (QfSNp)

57 Gee, Charles. Let's raise taxes on something that enables people to get to their jobs.

Smart.

Regressive, too!

Here's an idea: Lay off taxing necessities. I'm no bleeding heart, but things like fuel and food should be off limits.

Posted by: Warden at December 27, 2008 04:18 PM (KXbGD)

58
I love the Krauthammer plan: I don't own a car and I do pay FICA. So you guys who do drive a lot would be subsidizing me. Thanks, guys!

Posted by: Brown Line at December 27, 2008 04:20 PM (xYeJ1)

This was inevitable once gas prices dipped under 2 bucks a gallon. Congress feels that we're still used to paying over twice what it is now, so we won't notice the tax increase. Hell, they know most people will blame the eeeevillll oil companies for the price hikes.

Low prices now or not, the tax doesn't go away once prices rise again.

The reduction in gas prices has provided a billion dollar a day "stimulus" in the form of savings. We might be in really deep shit now if it weren't for that.

Posted by: KBDaBear at December 27, 2008 04:35 PM (miw86)

60 Krauthammer proposed this some years ago and Randy Andi nearly wet himself that another conservative (an actual one in Krauthammer's defense) wanted to add a $1/gallon gas tax. Mr. K's reasoning was that "no one needs an SUV, so drivers should get soaked". As the father of two-soon to be three- I'll simply say that your choices are a mini-van or an SUV. Anyone who tells you otherwise, including Mr. K, are simply full of shit. I'm sorry that he's gone back to this bullshit. He hopped off of it when gas reached $4/gallon, but now I guess it's on again. Funny thing is that gas prices are likely to skyrocket one The One re-imposes the offshore drilling restrictions. I guess Krauthammer is okay with $5+/gal gas. I, for one, am not.

Posted by: physics geek at December 27, 2008 04:38 PM (JotYN)

61 Hey, now that gas is down under $1.50 a gallon, are the oil execs gonna be called to Congress for a big, hearty congratulations for making gas more affordable for Americans?

Posted by: Warden at December 27, 2008 04:46 PM (KXbGD)

No more fucking taxes on gasoline.

Warden is right, when will we see the big oil hauled in front of congress?

Low gas price- good

High gas price-bad

Posted by: Contractem at December 27, 2008 04:53 PM (Mfxel)

63 Krauthammer is usually right, which makes this proposal all the more painful. He ignores two facts that make this totally unworkable. First, the incoming administration and Congress are not going to lower taxes on anything for any purpose at any time. Period. They will raise gas taxes. And they will raise payroll taxes. There is no other option in their minds. High taxes make liberals happy. Higher taxes make them happier. Second, high gas taxes are passed along to everyone as transportation costs of goods. A good portion of the new gas tax will show up at the supermarket or department store ( or if you buy online, as shipping charges ). UPS, Fedex, railroads, airlines etc. will have higher expenses and thus so will the consumer.

Politicians distorting the market by selective taxation always ends up costing the consumer. And it always benefits those who can afford to buy politicians.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at December 27, 2008 04:55 PM (5WYEz)

64 Krackhead Kharlie is a motherfucker. I've never liked him and I've never trusted him. A hawk on war and pussy on everything else. Fuck you, Krackhammer.

Posted by: jaleach at December 27, 2008 04:57 PM (gHrZU)

65 Krauthammer is not a conservative but a neocon (liberal hawk). That's why he doesn't like Palin; Sarah never saw a budget she didn't want to take a chainsaw to.

Posted by: bc3b at December 27, 2008 05:24 PM (kRinL)

66 A lot of folks have already said it but I'll add my voice: revenue neutrality is a myth. Once the Gov't gets it's hands on your money, they don't let go. Ever. Impose this tax and not only will FICA taxes go back up as soon as Congress thinks our backs are turned, but so too will the gas prices! So we get it from BOTH ends instead of just one and a half like normal. Any plan that requires Gov't to control itself and look out for any interest other than it's own is doomed to fail.

It's a simple fact of human society.

Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at December 27, 2008 05:24 PM (bl4xn)

64 Krackhead Kharlie is a motherfucker. I've never liked him and I've never trusted him. A hawk on war and pussy on everything else. Fuck you, Krackhammer.

Major fucking ditto

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 27, 2008 05:36 PM (DLJPO)

68 Furthermore my taxes on fuel in La. already amount to 38 cents on a gallon. 20 cents from La. and 18 from the Fucking Federal Fucking Government.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 27, 2008 05:38 PM (DLJPO)

I think we should socialize lawyers...nothing else in our economy deserves it but lawyers crave it.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at December 27, 2008 05:40 PM (DLJPO)

70 WTF? It is taxing commuters! Part of the Penn gas tax already goes to subsidize mass trans in Philly/Pitts//Harrisburg....Of course that will NEVER fucking help me....So I mail my gas reciepts to some asshole who's supposed to send me a check? Fuck you Krautty! ..And what about recreational boaters?..The price of gas almost killed inland lake Marinas! DICKHEAD.

Posted by: hutch1200 at December 27, 2008 05:47 PM (aowoN)

hutch1200

A federal law passed back during the Clinton years w/ Dem congress requires 20% of ALL federal gas tax money to go to mass transit.

Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2008 06:13 PM (f6os6)

FICA taxes are matched by your employer. If they give $14 back to you, it is taking $28 out of an already crumbling program.

Revenue neutral? You need to raise gas tax $2 to make it revenue nuetral.

Posted by: Paul at December 27, 2008 06:20 PM (3DhGz)

73 Krauthammer and others that support this idea are so goddam wrong that it's really hard to know where to begin arguing with them, since there is an overabundance of choice arguments to make against this cockamamie idea of a gas tax.

- You will not EVER conserve your way to energy independence. In 1975, automobiles sold in the U.S. averaged 13 miles per gallon, and the U.S. used 89 billion gallons of oil. In 1990, automobiles sold in the U.S. averaged 20 miles per gallon (a more than 50% increase) ... and yet we used 103 billion gallons of oil. (source: http://tinyurl.com/3eb7hk, scroll down to the section entitled "Conservation and Cafe"). In short, conservation is an absolute loser as an energy policy ... in fact, it's no energy policy at all.

- Another thing that Krauthammer and others cannot get through their thick heads is that all the nuclear, solar, wind, etc. etc. etc. will not do one damn thing to get us closer to energy independence. The problem with energy independence is one of LIQUID TRANSPORATION FUEL. God, why is this one so fucking hard for people to understand? We can generate all the electricity we want or need, and we use almost no oil to do it. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, we have hydroelectric generation all over the place, and if we have the political will, we could build more nukes. But even if we put a nuclear power plant on every streetcorner in the U.S., it would not reduce by one single drop our demand for liquid transportation fuel.

- What's even more baffling is the triumph of hope over experience upon which Krauthammer rests his thesis. Does he really believe that the fedgov will implement and keep a revenue neutral gas tax? Does he really believe that doing so won't have all kinds of unintended, negative consequences? In short, does he really believe that big government will do the right thing in all of this? If the answer to any of those questions is 'yes', then it appears that Dr. Krauthammer is smoking more weed than Willie Nelson at a glaucoma festival these days.

Posted by: thirteen28 at December 27, 2008 06:29 PM (MsWP4)

There is no longer a single person in the media anywhere who is a champion of free markets or liberty in general. There are a bunch of morons who see nothing wrong with picking the winners and losers in our economy by government fiat. The Republican party needs to die and it needs to die NOW if this is the best they have to offer. Economic conservatism is dead and social conservatism is a pox.

Kraut is a fucking idiot if he thinks he as any right to tell his fellow citizens what they should pay for a gallon of gas. I don't give a shit about Putin or the environment. I want my freedom back. If he can convince me I shouldn't buy gas through reasoning with me then he can have his way. Otherwise he is only proposing one tyranny (a gas tax) in fear of another (Putin etc...).

So instead of his plan here is what I propose as an alternative;

Krauthammer can go fuck himself

Posted by: ben franklin at December 27, 2008 06:32 PM (r11nM)

75 Richard Posner also proposed a gas tax when gas started going up.

With all due respect to his intellect, that would be a monumental blunder.

Petroleum is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Thicken it with taxes, and cardiovascular-economic disease is sure to follow.

Let's recapitulate 2008. Petroleum spike plus end of home equity line of credit = collapsed economy.

Err, wait, it's not quite collapsed -- just back down to 2006 GDP (not 1929!).

Beware anyone proposing higher taxes as a solution.

Here's an idea: Reduce federal and state taxes and bureaucratic red tape for start-ups and let's see what all these unemployed finance guys can create!

Posted by: Smarter Thanyou at December 27, 2008 06:38 PM (JPKWk)

76 As a California victim resident, I can only say that Prop 13 was great in its original intent. But now the legislature and the city councils call everything a fee and get away with charging for it.

The same will happen with this gas tax. No way, Charles, I don't trust 'em.

Posted by: PJ at December 27, 2008 06:55 PM (fyFnu)

77 No fucking way. Krauthammer is another Beltway insider squish "Republican" who needs to get taken out in the purge. Like "end up in the hills outside Teralingua" kind of taken out.

He is one more argument for conservatives either retaking the Republican Party or uniformly deserting it to chart our own course.

Posted by: SGT Dan at December 27, 2008 07:03 PM (+PoXK)

78 Yes indeed, through the magic of withholding the people have no way to deny revenue to the government except to reduce their income to zero.

We are nothing but cattle to them.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2008 07:05 PM (D6ZSd)

79 I have refrained from hammering away at the useless pieces of shit who pass themselves off as "conservative" commentators inside the Beltway. They are useless to the right and useful idiots to those on the left. I mean,of course, this piece of shit Chuck Krauthammer, whose name sounds like he's a German Wrestler, Fred Barnes, who has a last name that tells you where he keeps his head when it isn't up his ass, and a variety of other mouth breathers and wastrels.

Krauthammer can stick a six foot 2x4 up his ass until it comes out his stuttering, pontificating mouth for all I care. The fact that this sanctimonious maggot wants to play hide and seek with the taxes (that those of us who drive have to pay) tells you he is an absolute, insular asshole who hasn't driven himself in years.
Fred Barnes, I am sure, put up the good fight for ten, maybe fifteen seconds and then agreed with his fellow asshat.
Screw the both of these assholes,and Christopher Buckley and all the other ringroad republicans,small R there.
I would not piss on one of them if they were on fire.

I hate pontificating RINO pieces of shit. Really, I do.

Cantankerous as ever,
Sandman.

Posted by: Enter sandman at December 27, 2008 07:15 PM (zxaA2)

I'm thinkin' John Anderson ran in 1980 on just this ticket. Got the solid Doonesbury-reader vote, too.

Otherwise, Reagan kicked his ass.

Let's see. Is 28 years too soon to recycle an idea we rejected already?

Posted by: pouncer at December 27, 2008 07:38 PM (0NHrf)

81 It never ceases to amaze me that people who don't make their living working for a living spend so much time screwing with people who do.

A guy who has a small fleet of landscaping trucks sees his fuel cost rise 85% with this move. He can eat it or pass the cost on to his customers in an already competitive market.

This is frickin' insane. These elite bastards with Georgetown homes and dinner at the Willard a couple of times a month don't belong to anything called a conservative party.

Posted by: open_channel_d at December 27, 2008 08:36 PM (EVnOB)

Gabe,

In other words, it will require Congress or an executive body to act every year

I shit you not, that was the funniest thing I've read all week. You owe me a keyboard w/o coffee in it.

Posted by: nudge, nudge at December 27, 2008 09:17 PM (6BtMV)

83 How about we stop using the tax code to influence behavior, and instead use it to raise revenue for the budget, eh Dr. Krauthammer? That way, we stop bullshitting around with things like revenue-neutrality and tradeoffs.

And if Dr. K thinks the FICA offset reduction would persist six months, he is as addled as others say he is. We'd then have a gas tax and the same old FICA tax, Wake up, just for the hell of it, Doc. See what's out there.

Posted by: NoTheOtherOne at December 27, 2008 09:36 PM (ryrCE)

84 Fuck you, Wheels. I'm a little slow, but this election pounded it home that it truly is us against them...middle American values vs. D.C. corridor elitism(Dems AND Repubes).

Posted by: EddieMunster at December 27, 2008 09:37 PM (1+E1V)

@56: What, so you math nerds can create another global economic crisis? Brilliant plan.

You want to stop the lawyers who are hurting the market? Simple. Just remove all of the attorney's fees clauses from "public interest" litigation. It would all stop tomorrow.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at December 27, 2008 09:41 PM (8MuSQ)

Jesus, did any of you fuckers read my post at #11?

What more was there to say? I am waiting for someone to add anything to my post???

Does anyone understand economics at the Ace of Spades HQ?

Just a question.

I'll be hunting hobos tonight, before they go out of season, Jan 20th.

Kemp

Posted by: kempermanx at December 27, 2008 09:46 PM (2+9Yx)

>>What do you think about it.<<

Unmitigated bullshit.

Posted by: Javems at December 27, 2008 11:06 PM (/IQA9)

88 I think I don't pay FICA taxes anymore, but I do buy gas.

Posted by: SukieTawdry at December 27, 2008 11:41 PM (7WUCp)

89 Guess what happens when everyone buys Chevy volts because they can buy far less gas that way?

Tax revenues go way down. Then what? Tax electricity more?

Posted by: Aaron at December 28, 2008 12:38 AM (Gp9ql)

90 So this stupid shell game is going to generate a positive result? How? Moving a tax from one area to another accomplishes nothing; the end number remains the same. Oh, and how much is that "small bureaucracy" going to cost, and how long do you think it will be before it assumes the standard model of a bloated, inefficient government debacle? Kill this idea in the crib.

Posted by: nraendowment at December 28, 2008 03:20 AM (WN5r+)

91 How about a special 99% tax on media blather mouths like CK?

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at December 28, 2008 05:38 AM (0Qynq)

92 We don't negotiate with terrorists,

We don't offer up extra taxes,

No Danegeld, ever.

Posted by: Boss Mongo at December 28, 2008 06:11 AM (SVyU6)

93 It never fails. Every person, no matter how wise and sane they seem on most subjects, has some special interest where they lose all rationality and champion a course they'd otherwise stand against.

This is Krauthammer's special insanity.

Posted by: epobirs at December 28, 2008 08:29 AM (wkpue)

94 My take: A pretty smart guy just proposed a very dumb thing. It happens.

Posted by: t.ferg at December 28, 2008 04:32 PM (c/8+r)

95 No, no, and NO. Is everyone on the "right" now abandoning reason to become members of the good ship "Nanny State?"

What an utter, blind fool.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 29, 2008 12:14 PM (FCbvi)

96 I'm not kidding about this treason of principal and practicality on the "Right." Look at this sort of reaction to Krautie the Diver at The Corner... they are not even hiding it. The discussion on the Right no longer starts at "let's reduce government," it now begins at "let's keep our taxes high, but we'll tax different stuff and spend it on different stuff. See? We're totally different than Democrats." We will cure your cancer, but replace it with a touch of bubonic plague. And these same Repugnicans spent months praising Amity Shlaes new book that debunks the FDR myth that government intervention and swollen fiscal policies ended the Depression. Yet now, they can't wait to tinker with taxes, in directions that they very well know will go only up. They can't wait to print wads of gubmint money and feed to their corporate favorites like GM and AIG.

GOP... fuck off and die. At least we can be "cool" now. When people make insulting remarks about Rethugs, I won't be offended... but not for the reasons they think.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Taxing Energy [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Charles Krauthammer wants a higher gas tax combined with the end of fuel-economy standards and a reduction in the payroll tax. Rep. Bob Inglis and Arthur Laffer want a carbon tax offset by reductions in other taxes. My tentative view is that if either deal could be counted on to stick it would be worth taking�although I'd be interested to hear what Jim Manzi thinks. But I think a lot of conservatives are going to be suspicious that the higher taxes would prove more long-lasting than the tax reductions.

12/29 12:04 PM

Posted by: George Orwell at December 29, 2008 01:15 PM (FCbvi)

97 AVI to iPod Converter,ASF to iPod Converter ,DVD to iPod Converter ,Vob to iPod Converter ,MPEG to iPod Converter ,WMV to iPod Converter ,FLV to iPod Converter ,MKV to iPod Converter ,TiVo to iPod Converter ,RM/RMVB to iPod Converter ,MOV to iPod Converter ,YouTube to iPod Converter ,iPod to Computer Transfer,iPod to Mac Transfer

Posted by: hhhsssdd at March 06, 2009 01:04 AM (QLvrP)

98 How are you. A good man would prefer to be defeated than to defeat injustice by evil means. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Bingo hall. I found only this - buckingham Bingo hall. The suspect approached the security guard who was escorting a woman to her car near interstate and eisenhauer road. So far, the new movie bruno looks like a hit. Thank ;-) Hedia from Croatia.

Posted by: Hedia at August 01, 2009 12:03 PM (VofJu)

Posted by: UGGSale at October 08, 2009 08:46 PM (ZlJW7)

100 Supra FootwearThe supra shoe is comfortable and can wear all day.
supra ShoesThe bestsupra.com seems to be from strong material, and have many seems all over. They are really beautifull.
Supra Skytopbestsupra.com offer Great quality shoe for a reasonable price.
Supra 2009Comfort

Posted by: ryiu at October 12, 2009 09:11 PM (2kqI/)

101 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

Posted by: steve at October 14, 2009 08:21 AM (+aWy4)

Posted by: retailike at October 17, 2009 10:36 AM (zFgZJ)

103 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 06:25 AM (9oMrs)

104 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

Posted by: reviewups at October 24, 2009 10:08 AM (tKCDW)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 04:31 AM (PIaTo)

106 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 07:52 AM (c6EK2)

107 Standard is very important to choose a thing.Different criteria lead to different results.

Choosing shoes is the same rationale.Beautiful and comfortable standard of the majority of people are basically.nike dunk sb shoe is consistent with this standard.Regardless of the external and internal design would use this unique technology. http://www.dunksky.com/

Posted by: nike dunk sb at October 29, 2009 07:42 AM (qtc5Q)

108

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

/>

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at October 30, 2009 06:57 AM (LACJ9)

109 Cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Shoes Sale
UGG Australia
Discount UGG boots
UGG Bailey Button
cheap ugg boots

Posted by: gfhgyuj at November 02, 2009 05:58 AM (Rzoq5)

110 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 02, 2009 07:15 PM (jjolb)

111 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 07:39 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: ugg at November 11, 2009 12:13 AM (ly6Oi)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 12:15 AM (IeIJx)

114 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 13, 2009 11:46 PM (APB+g)

115 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 03:54 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 02:41 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: nike shoes at November 17, 2009 03:40 AM (DuP3Z)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:06 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:33 PM (xpuiO)

120 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 18, 2009 05:17 AM (WPYlQ)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 07:06 AM (C/zDM)

122 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 23, 2009 12:15 AM (bNNim)

123 None of us are born with a set of shoes mbt shoes on our feet, but they are infinitely important to our wellbeing. Even though the commercial shoe http://www.mbter.com industry didn't get underway during the beginnings of civilization, man is believed to have constructed footwear mbt shoes 40,000 years ago. So the question isn't whether you should buy a pair of shoes... it's how should you go about buying them!
When you're shoe shopping, the task can seem overwhelming and frustrating. You just want to try on a few pairs of shoes and then get out of the store. But the reality is that you should pick out a pair of shoes mbt shoes with a lot more care than other items of your wardrobe. After all, the health of your feet are at stake!

Posted by: pigeu at November 23, 2009 07:59 PM (1aNEH)

124 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

Posted by: reviewups at November 26, 2009 10:56 PM (xUZwC)

125 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

Posted by: nike air max at December 01, 2009 08:10 PM (OKj2x)

126 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what��s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

Posted by: reviewups at December 03, 2009 02:44 AM (OKj2x)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 10:32 AM (bsW/x)

128 discount ugg boots
ugg boots outlet
cheap ugg outlet
cheap ugg boots
ugg classic tall
ugg bailey button
ugg rainier
ugg classic cardy
ugg classic crochet
ugg classic mini
ugg classic short
ugg classic tall
ugg nightfall
ugg sundance
ugg ultra short
ugg ultra tall
ugg boots 5389

Posted by: uggboots at December 07, 2009 06:25 AM (Cooh2)

129 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

Posted by: ugg boots sale at December 10, 2009 06:04 AM (I3/dZ)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 12, 2009 12:50 PM (/3s/N)

131 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

Posted by: gfdg at December 14, 2009 01:00 PM (iV/dV)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 15, 2009 06:50 AM (x7rNt)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 16, 2009 06:02 AM (1dySH)

134

Posted by: ugg sole at December 17, 2009 03:13 AM (kjiNu)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 20, 2009 09:05 AM (1dySH)

136 nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93

Posted by: nike air max 360 shoes at December 22, 2009 10:36 AM (xnxK1)

137 thank you very much,your article write very nice and usefull,i'm so like that i will recommend the article to my friends.Meanwhile,the nike air max sell in our air max store,if you like nike air max,you can view the beautifull womens air max in our website,thank you again.
http://www.shoe-wholesale.com/

Posted by: nike air max at December 23, 2009 10:15 AM (3i5cr)

138
Blu-ray Video Converter,Blu-ray Burner,Convert DVD to iPod,AVI Converter for Mac,TOD Converter for Mac

Posted by: biliy at December 27, 2009 04:52 AM (sFIS+)

139 nike shox for kids
nike shox monster
nike shox nz
nike shox nz ii
nike shox oz
nike shox R3
nike shox R4
nike shox R4 torch
nike shox R5
nike shox TL1
nike shox TL3
nike shox Torch
nike shox turb

Posted by: nike high dunk at January 02, 2010 02:08 AM (8u0Dq)

140 Hair Straightener
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Camo
Hair Straightener
GHI
pink chi hair
CHI
Pink GHI Hair
Pink GHD
GHD

Posted by: Pink GHI Hair at January 03, 2010 06:13 PM (aeo9/)

141 UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots
Ugg classic cardy
UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots

Posted by: ugg shoes|timberland uk|ugg boots|87415555.com.cn at January 06, 2010 06:51 AM (qzq48)

142 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

Posted by: El temporal de fr��o y nieve pone en alerta a once comunidades aut��nomas ugg boots|ugg uk|timberlan at January 10, 2010 09:05 PM (tWrEP)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 30, 2010 12:31 AM (ll36v)

144

The H4 replica watches took replica watches Harrison a massive 13 years to replica watches construct-but this was only the end of a lifetime's work. His genius was clear from the very beginning. Unfortunately many astronomers such as Nevil Maskelyne were convinced that a mechanical solution replica watches would not work and that only astronomy could solve the replica watches longitude problem. The fact that Harrison was from a working class family and had little replica watches formal education probably didn't help his prospects.Solving the longitude problem through horology meant designing a timepiece that could work accurately at sea. When you watch consider the rolling waves, changes in replica watches temperature and generally adverse replica watches conditions the dificulty of this task becomes apparent.The H1 was completed in 1735 and proved replica successful at sea. However the Board of Longitude demanded a full a transatlantic wholesale watch voyage. They gave Harrison a grant of 500 pounds with which he began work on the H2 watches.

Posted by: replica watches at January 30, 2010 09:13 PM (Ddc+V)

Posted by: airmax at January 31, 2010 10:34 AM (3vSvS)

146 Replica Watches have become trendy Replica Watches accessories to men and women apart from just being used to indicate time. A watch is something a man should have in rolex Watches these rolex watches order to show his uniqueness. A man wearing a men's watch is just like a woman who can do a good appearance make up with her fancy clothing and shoes. Especially a famous watch, it means a lot to a man.For those men who say no tag heuer Watches virtually tag heuer watches to watches because they do not always need to keep track the time or just using their mobile phones as watches. But they may need to think twice. Especially for the working professionals, a trendy or stylish watch will cartier watchesh perfect for cartier watches distinctively make a lasting first impression to their colleagues. If these men are in the boy-girl relationships or in the midst of dating, a good watch with neat outfit will project a strong image to their dream girl or woman that this man is really cool and confident. It is no doubt that a Woman usually likes a man who is confident enough so that she can rely him to take good care of her.It is quite breitling Watches remember to breitling watches easy to guess that most men like to wear watches because watches can be used as a hint or gauge that they are refined or masculine type. There are many types of watches for different age group. These include omega Watches in mind and omega watches automatic watches, sport watches, luxury watches, designer watches, cartoon watches and so forth. In today's fashion world, the trend is going back to chronograph watches. Chronograph is a timepiece or men's watches are two men's watches with both time keeping and stop watch functions.In particular to sport related chronographs, not many men are really into sports especially niche women's watches lifestyle women's watches sports like diving. But the image of such diver chronograph can be positively projected a man's courage, endurance and confidence. Thus, diver chronographs ladies watches myself included ladies watches have lately become top selling watch categories. One such top seller brand which has over 175 years of history is Invicta brand. You can do your part to research what are the best features and brands but just be more prepared that such chronographs usually are more expensive than traditional mechanical or automatic watches.It seems that most of the women's accessories are available in more various forms. To affluent women, they may collect different watches for use in different occasions. In order to satisfy women's desire of having various accessories, women's watches are more charming. Women do not really care how powerful or complex the watch is. They will focus more on design, colors and styles, i.e. the aesthetical beauty of a watch.

Posted by: replica watches at February 03, 2010 02:20 PM (5grrG)

147 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 03, 2010 10:22 PM (YOuVm)

Posted by: may at February 06, 2010 12:37 PM (Eu9Vs)

149 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 07, 2010 03:12 AM (TUJDt)

Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.0923 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0113 seconds, 158 records returned.
Page size 169 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.