Obamas Gas Tact

Published in the Tufts Daily on April 5, 2016: https://tuftsdaily.com/opinion/2016/04/05/obama-gas-tact/

President Obamas new budget proposal includes a $10 fee on oil, a thinly veiled tax that would generate
money for investment in smart infrastructure, green technology, and sustainable practices. The fee will be
immediately paid by oil companies but likely passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
With petroleum plummeting in price, the White House has seized the moment to generate a national
conversation about climate change and sustainable efforts, even if an oil fee will immediately be struck
down in the Republican-controlled Congress.

White House plans for the oil fee, released ahead of President Obamas fiscal year 2017 budget
submission, say that the fee could generate more than $32 billion in annual income. The largest chunk of
these fundsabout $20 billion will go toward enhanced transportation options like high-speed rails,
mass transit systems, and self-driving cars. While $20 billion may be a drop in the bucket compared to
government defense spending, it is roughly equal to the budgets of the Department of the Interior and the
Environment Protection Agency combined. The oil fee would also support a 150 percent increase of
TIGER, a well-received stimulus program will currently provides $500 million in discretionary funds for
sustainable infrastructure projects. The White House plan allocates $2 billion annually toward
investments in R&D for clean transportation efforts like fuel-efficient airplanes and charging stations.

Due to North Americas energy resurgence and infighting among OPEC nations, oil prices have fallen 75
percent since mid-2014 to their lowest point in more than a decade. The timing is right for a gas tax to
combat global warming, potentially the greatest challenge of the future. Transportation accounts for 30
percent of U.S. emissions, and the White House sees the fee as a source of new innovation in addition to
an attempt to encourage sustainable transport.
However, the White House plan was immediately rejected by Republicans in Congress. "From day one of
President Obamas administration, he has waged open warfare on American energy," said House Majority
Whip Steve Scalise. The fee could add 25 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline, a hike that would be
unpopular with energy companies as well as much of the American public.

White House officials acknowledge that the plan is largely symbolic, meant to generate conversation and
policy discussions around sustainable practices. After all, this proposal comes just months after President
Obama signed the five-year, $305 billion FAST Act, a bipartisan highway bill which allocates money for
the maintenance of the U.S transportation infrastructure. Historically, the highway fund was supplied by
an 18.4 percent tax on gas, but Congress has not raised this figure since 1993, and it has fallen behind
demand and inflation. While gas has become increasingly cheap, our nations roads, bridges, and railways
are crumbling, imposing $160 billion in costs and creating 7 billion hours of traffic every year, according
to White House figures.

Upon release of the plan, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan remarked, Once again, the president expects
hard working consumers to pay for his out-of-touch climate agenda....As this lame-duck president knows,
its dead on arrival in Congress. Unfortunately, Ryan is right about this proposals future. But as the
most powerful Republican in the country, he is demonstrating incredible myopia in responding to the
current and future problems that this country faces. Republicans will never support a tax that harms
energy companies that are already reeling from low oil prices. And most Americans will not look beyond
the price sign as the gas station. Even Hillary Clintonwho supports sustainable efforts and investment in
smart infrastructurehas pledged to oppose tax increases on families earning less than $250,000 a year,
which this plan does, regressively. But it is helpful to think of this plan as an investment rather than a tax.
The White House is calling for an allocation of resources into the future of our country, into stopping the
economic and environmental hemorrhaging that is happening every year as a result of our dependency on
greenhouse gas-producing transportation.

In President Obamas first term, he dismissed a Democratic transportation bill to avoid unpopular
conversations over gasoline tax increases. Since then, he has seen his efforts on new infrastructure bills
and a cap and trade program rejected by Republicans. Now, rather than avoiding the conversation, Obama
is creating it, even if it places Democratic candidates like Clinton in an awkward position. Unfortunately,
a conversation is not enough. This plan is a good one, and its a shame that all we can do it talk about it.