I think Nader is 100% correct by saying
we should tax things we don't like. Pollution
_should_ be taxed. Air pollution causes
up to 80,000 deaths in the US each year and
adds millions in health care costs.
As for taxing sprawl, the real problem
with sprawl is that it is a direct result
of our insane automobile subsidies. There
is this myth that gas taxes cover the costs
of our roads, highways, etc when in fact
it doesn't even come close. If drivers
(i.e. road users) had to pay the real
costs of driving out of their pocket, gas
tax would be at European levels. Last time
I looked, Europe did not have problems
with sprawl.
The difference between Bush and Gore is so minimal that it does not
make any difference which one wins the election. Both support the death penalty, both have a terrible record
in health care, welfare (Lieberman collects more money from the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries
than any other Senator). Both want to privatize parts of Social Security. Both will sell out to corporations at the
expense of the environment and workplace safety. For all the talk about abortion, the Democratically
controlled Senate approved the 2 most conservative judges on the Supreme Court (Scalia and Thomas) --
and Gore voted for both of them! Gore says he will protect the environment, but I didn't see Clinton/Gore do
anything to stop logging in old-growth forests or closing the loophole that allows SUV's to pollute as much as
light trucks. For all the talk about the Alaskan Arctic refuge, past history shows that Gore would sell it out in a
second if given a big enough campaign contribution or if it is seen as unpopular based on some focus group
poll. Here in San Francisco, state Democrats want to pave over 2 square miles of SF Bay to make room for
more runways at SFO and they are even trying to re-write state law to exempt the project from
environmental review -- that was the last straw for me. I'm voting Nader.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Nader is 100% correct by saying we should tax things we don't like. Pollution _should_ be taxed. Air pollution causes up to 80,000 deaths in the US each year and adds millions in health care costs. As for taxing sprawl, the real problem with sprawl is that it is a direct result of our insane automobile subsidies. There is this myth that gas taxes cover the costs of our roads, highways, etc when in fact it doesn't even come close. If drivers (i.e. road users) had to pay the real costs of driving out of their pocket, gas tax would be at European levels. Last time I looked, Europe did not have problems with sprawl.
The difference between Bush and Gore is so minimal that it does not make any difference which one wins the election. Both support the death penalty, both have a terrible record in health care, welfare (Lieberman collects more money from the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries than any other Senator). Both want to privatize parts of Social Security. Both will sell out to corporations at the expense of the environment and workplace safety. For all the talk about abortion, the Democratically controlled Senate approved the 2 most conservative judges on the Supreme Court (Scalia and Thomas) -- and Gore voted for both of them! Gore says he will protect the environment, but I didn't see Clinton/Gore do anything to stop logging in old-growth forests or closing the loophole that allows SUV's to pollute as much as light trucks. For all the talk about the Alaskan Arctic refuge, past history shows that Gore would sell it out in a second if given a big enough campaign contribution or if it is seen as unpopular based on some focus group poll. Here in San Francisco, state Democrats want to pave over 2 square miles of SF Bay to make room for more runways at SFO and they are even trying to re-write state law to exempt the project from environmental review -- that was the last straw for me. I'm voting Nader.