Democrats build odd boxes for themselves. Not that Republicans don’t as well, but our team is supposed to be the smart team, which makes it all the more frustrating when otherwise smart Democratic Leaders feel the need time and time again to throw consistency and political cause-and-effect to the wind for an opportunity to try and prove to many of the leery, barely-engaged “swing” voters that we are exactly what our nemeses on the Right often warn them we are.

Part of the problem is that its too easy for Democrats to think of themselves checklist voters – people who have particular views on an assortment of single issues, rather than a cohesive vision. But there’s no issue we value that doesn’t somehow tie back to an economic component. The environment, human dignity, civil rights – you name it, they all ultimately have an impact on an overall economic vision. This is why it behooves us to be consistent in that vision, as when we decouple economics from our other issues, we prove the BS the other side says about us to be correct.

And the biggest, easiest piece of crap flung our way is always the environment vs. jobs equation. The Democrats care more about spotted owls than your ability to provide for yourself, and they’re always making up crazy things like “global warming” just to lord them over you and keep you down stuff.

And policy proposals like a gas tax increase during an economic downturn, and while $4-a-gallon is still fresh in everyone’s mind just firm up that narrative in people’s minds. Not just because of the timing. There are two other reasons as well.

First of all, even people who don’t understand what “regressive taxation” means, understand implicitly that gas taxes are regressive. That’s because they hurt some of us deeply, while those of higher income brackets clearly don’t sweat it. And folks in those vulnerable income brackets notice when these proposals come from members of the Party that purports to be looking out for them.

Second of all is the perception of complete indifference. Obviously we need to fix the roads, but is an archetypally regressive tax really the only way? Nobody in the state-at-large believes that for a minute, so they are left to conclude that those who make such proposals can’t be bothered to be creative enough to come up with progressive revenue solutions – or worse, that they are being somehow punished by these folks for having to drive too much. And that’s deeply patronizing. Also not an endearing motivation.

Now there may be elements of all these things in play (or not) on an individual basis, but the real reason for the return to the gas tax as a place for revenue (and this applies to the sales tax as well) in my opinion is just that they are simple solutions, and our policymakers can’t seem to help but look towards the simple solutions, even if the policy and electoral implications can be so self-evidently problematic.

There are two reasons we gravitate toward the most simple solutions with problems like this.  

First of all, it must be said, that some of us are simple people. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it just is. We come to a nice, easy idea, we stop there. It’s easier that way.

But the truth is that simple often equals primal, and a lot of us on the left really do act out on some of our primal instincts in the public policy arena the way some wingnuts insist we do. One primal instinct is the punitive, and lets face it, you don’t have to go very far on the liberal blogosphere before you see higher gas taxes advocated first and foremost because folks are angry to see all these SUV drivers not taking their admonitions to drive less seriously enough, so by god let’s sock ’em in the wallet.

The big justification for this gut reaction is twofold: number one, prices are higher in Europe, so there’s no reason not to have ’em as pricey here too. This, again, is deeply simplistic. No numbers in the economy are discrete – especially not fuel prices. The economy is one big balanced (or semi-balanced) algebraic equation, and you can’t just radically change one variable and pretend it doesn’t effect all the other ones. European countries have their own equations as well, and suddenly raising or dropping a critical component of that equation and pretending it won’t have consequences – even if our neighbors have a slightly different equation in play – is just plain silly.

Besides – you know the other thing that’s a lot higher in Europe: the social safety net. If we wanna kick vulnerable jobs over, we damn well better be prepared to take care of the people impacted, and as it stands, we’re most definitely not.

The second argument is that gas taxes are down now – $2 off from where they were only months ago – so clearly, people can take it.

Also silly. People were in a panic and livelihoods were being impacted. It’s hard to quantify what in the midst of our full-blown economic morass, but it would seem ridiculous to suggest that gas prices didn’t play a part in the increased debt burden being carried by working families and small business during what is, at its heart, a credit-crisis driven recession.

But at the end of the day, these two things only matter so much. The fact is that the principle in play should be fundamental; this is a regressive tax. People will say “oh its not that regressive” or even “its not regressive at all” and offer absolutely no facts to back that up before getting the argument out of the way and moving on to wax excited about what great policy it is. And of course, if you think for half a second, its clear that there is no evidence to back up such claims because they are absurd.

The gas tax hits working people disproportionately hard. It is regressive. By definition. And it’s an awfully nice position to be in, in this country (and this economy) to be able to decide from on high that’s its not too regressive, and that the little people should just suck it up (and eat cake while they’re at it, I suppose).

So why don’t we step back and ask the question that we should be asking: what’s the pragmatic thing to do?

We believe overly regressive taxation is not only wrong, its bad policy, so we make taxation as progressive as possible. Yet we need a source of revenue from somewhere to fix the roads. Of course the other argument you hear is that its somehow axiomatic that all public spending must be funded by comparably themed revenue streams, a la cigarette taxes for health care. Sounds nice, but again that’s the simplistic reflex again. Do property taxes have anything inherently to do with education? What about all the myriad general fund items that are financed through the income tax and the sales tax? Is anyone suggesting that Jim Douglas’s army of spokespeople would be okay if only he funded them with a tax on press releases?

So is there no way to break out of the simple/simplistic to come up with a new revenue stream to fund infrastructure repair that is not so regressive? Is it really so hopeless?

Geezum crow, folks, are we that uncreative? Do we give up that easily?

How about Matt Dunne’s proposed gas guzzler tax? From back in 2006:

State Sen. Matt Dunne suggested imposing a $50 surcharge on the sale of new vehicles that get 20-24 miles per gallon and $250 for those that get less than 19 miles per gallon.

The charge for vehicles that weigh more than 8,500 pounds would be $300. Pickup trucks would be exempt.

Officials said the proposed charges would raise an estimated $3.9 million.

Here’s a framework that gives ways-and-means types something far more fine-tuneable. Tweak the targeting to allow for lower mileage family transportation, set it at a percentage rather than flat charges, and voila – a far more progressive alternative.

Of course it died a quick death in the Senate, as folks like Senate Leader Shumlin decided it was too scary to talk about in front of voters during an election season.

But a gas tax isn’t???

And this – this – is where the devotion to the gas tax against all reason seems almost fetishistic. Are some of us so uncreative that alternatives just seem impossible, sure – but when an alternative arises and we push it away using the excuse that its electorally untenable and cleave again to the gas tax, which was already the most poinsonous electoral topic I could imagine before unaffordable gasoline was so fresh in people’s memories is not simply counterintuitive, it’s divorced from reality.

A gas guzzler-tax could be crafted and presented as essentially be a luxury tax. It would create market incentives that could have the effect of functionally raising mileage standards across the state. It could easily be fine-tuned not to impact the vulnerable who have no choice but to drive, while bringing down overall gas consumption. And as a luxury tax, it’d be a lot easier to sell to the swing vote set.

But is it really so much more important to us to rap the knuckles of all those darn rednecks and their monster trucks who should know better?

Come on, folks. Let’s stop punishing and start governing. It’s the right thing to do, the smart thing to do, and it’s an election winner. What more can we ask?

Given the kerfulffle we've been having re appointments and the lack of netroots certified (nee ordained) nominees, I'd like to point out that Samantha Power looks like she is headed for a major slot at State.  TPM is reporting she is heading transition at State, but I heard scuttlebutt before the holiday that she may head up Policy and Planning at State (this is a hugely important position at State)

Why should liberals care? Samantha is a leading expert on genocide and human rights. Her book: A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, won major accolades (and featured the work of Vermonter Peter Galbraith).  Her newest book is about the life of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the spouse of a friend of mine from grad school, chronicles the efforts of the Brazilian diplomat up to his death in the 2003 bombing of the UN in Baghdad.  Samantha is a major policy heavyweight in human rights policy.  If she were to get Policy and Planning, it would ensure that human rights would play a central role in our foreign policy.  

One would hope her role and possible appointment to a HRC State Department would be considered significant by the netroots.  Yet, thus far there is silence.  Crickets are chirping.

My theory is that there are two reasons: 1) netroots is still kinda weak on foreign policy.  Sure Bowers, Sirota, Stoller and Kos will periodically raise foreign policy issues, but it is not really their bailey wick.  Of the major blogs, I think TPM is the only one I've seen that will really probe (mostly in TPM cafe) foreign policy issues in depth. 2) the foreign policy community is still quite elitist and also somewhat insulated from partisan politics because the principle divide in foreign policy is between realism and idealism – neither of which are readily encompassed by the conservative or liberal moniker.