Of government and gullibility

There is a big "G" written on the forehead of March 1 Fence Post writer Tom Rajcan. It stands for "government" and "gullible."

On the government side, he thinks that we aren't being taxed quite enough. Another 50 cents or a dollar federal tax added to the cost of a gallon of gasoline to fund energy research is needed. That money should go into a "special fund," not to be co-mingled with general revenue. Sounds like the infamous social security "lockbox." By a year's end he thinks there would be enough revenue to pay for a whole bunch of government-funded research programs. Like most who would rather tax first and ask questions later, that is the same theory liberals had when they enacted a high tax on luxury yachts to bring in a bounty of revenue. What was overlooked is that tax policy influences spending behavior, and that selfish rich class just decided not to buy yachts. Ultimately, those employed by the yacht makers lost their jobs. Hence, no tax revenue "windfall" coupled with workers who were removed from the tax rolls.

The "gullible" portion is a failure to understand behavioral changes from tax policy. Unfortunately, good intentions often fail because of unintended consequences. Let's not add to the potential failure list; we seem to have enough of those coming out of Washington.

Instead, how about trying things not requiring new taxes. Consider the expansion of nuclear power (hey, if it's good enough for the French, it passes the liberal smell test!). How about digging for oil in our own back yard, for real this time, and remember, oil exploration often come as a "twofer" with natural gas.

The most gullible part of this gas tax plan is his conviction that "all Americans would support such a program." Mr. Rajcan, speak for yourself.

Lori Carlson

Glen Ellyn