Time: Pain at the Pump
#21
05-02-2006, 12:39 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Originally Posted by blinkard
It's a little sandpit known an Iraq. Perhaps you've heard of it? They have the world's largest oil reserves, and we happen to conveniently have invaded it because we want share democracy with them.
Originally Posted by blinkard
Gas is $6/gallon in England, $7+ in Amsterdam, $3+ in the U.S. England has a 75% tax on gasoline. Ours is what? 18.4 cents per gallon. That's less than 6%.
Originally Posted by blinkard
By law, oil companies are required to pay tax on the oil they extract from federally-owned land, if gas is above $55 per gallon. But we're not enforcing that. Yes, they're taking OUR oil, not paying us for it, then selling it to us for a huge markup.
How's that for keeping prices low?
How's that for keeping prices low?
Oil companies do all the work getting it to you, for a lot less than if we let our government retrieve OUR oil. I'd prefer the oil companies had to buy the land at auction, would you allow the sale? You could buy YOUR oil and refine it yourself.
#22
05-02-2006, 12:41 PM
Re: This Week's Time Article
Here are a couple of ideas that fit this thread ...
First take a look as the differences for the price of gasoline around the world. (quite the range)
Second is my theory of encouraging 'right sizing' vehicle choices. We do this with a simple stencil and can of spray paint to change the weight limits permitted at 65 or 70mph on the highway(cheap), offer a little lead time warning as to a change in weight limit and then enforcment the new law that only permits 'car' weights to travel at the higher speeds. (ie. reduce legal speed on highways for vehicle over 2 tons to existing truck limits while lighter vehicle are permitted higher speeds) Now people will continue to be able to drive their behemoths, but will not be able to zip at 65 or 70 mph and be restricted to 55 or receive a ticket. They might consider 'right-sizing' their car purchase next time around, yet those who need that big vehicle can still purchase and drive them ... just slower. Over time this will cause conservation of gasoline and IMHO purchases of vehicles that are more efficient.
Third ... make oil importers, and in turn the consumers who use that oil pay their own way. In other words, evaluate the cost of 'securely' getting oil to the consumer and IF (and we of course do) we use current income taxes to assist in doing that, pass that along to the imported oil product. If a barrel of oil require $10 in our current income taxes to get to our shores securely, attach that to the product AND return the $10 to the taxpayer. Net change in taxes = 0 ... but the tax was attached to the product that required the federal dollars spent. Notice ... this would help domestic producers of petroleum, biofuels and other technologies since they wouldn't be subject the same fees. Sometime ago I coined the term PAA - Petroleum Aquisition Adjustment ... just to make it sound more palitable. I'll attach an article that a friend (although politically we do not see eye to eye on most things) wrote when proposing the PAA.
First take a look as the differences for the price of gasoline around the world. (quite the range)
Second is my theory of encouraging 'right sizing' vehicle choices. We do this with a simple stencil and can of spray paint to change the weight limits permitted at 65 or 70mph on the highway(cheap), offer a little lead time warning as to a change in weight limit and then enforcment the new law that only permits 'car' weights to travel at the higher speeds. (ie. reduce legal speed on highways for vehicle over 2 tons to existing truck limits while lighter vehicle are permitted higher speeds) Now people will continue to be able to drive their behemoths, but will not be able to zip at 65 or 70 mph and be restricted to 55 or receive a ticket. They might consider 'right-sizing' their car purchase next time around, yet those who need that big vehicle can still purchase and drive them ... just slower. Over time this will cause conservation of gasoline and IMHO purchases of vehicles that are more efficient.
Third ... make oil importers, and in turn the consumers who use that oil pay their own way. In other words, evaluate the cost of 'securely' getting oil to the consumer and IF (and we of course do) we use current income taxes to assist in doing that, pass that along to the imported oil product. If a barrel of oil require $10 in our current income taxes to get to our shores securely, attach that to the product AND return the $10 to the taxpayer. Net change in taxes = 0 ... but the tax was attached to the product that required the federal dollars spent. Notice ... this would help domestic producers of petroleum, biofuels and other technologies since they wouldn't be subject the same fees. Sometime ago I coined the term PAA - Petroleum Aquisition Adjustment ... just to make it sound more palitable. I'll attach an article that a friend (although politically we do not see eye to eye on most things) wrote when proposing the PAA.
Ending Petroleum Dependence with the PAA (Petroleum Acquisition Assessment)
The goal of freeing ourselves from foreign oil – in fact foreign energy supplies in general – should by now be held by virtually all Americans, as the costs of our continued dependence become more and more apparent. In fact, the potential cost once global oil supplies can not meet global demand (a point most experts expect us to reach within the next 10 years) will be far larger than anything we’ve seen thus far – with oil prices skyrocketing, and wars likely fought overtly over that remaining oil supply.
Ultimately, the best path towards energy independence will consist most likely of increasing efficiency through the use of parallel (plug in) hybrid vehicles, combined with a gradual transition away from petroleum by running them (and our current vehicles) on an increasing percentage of liquid biofuels – ethanol and biodiesel. But, using credits and other incentives to promote these fuels have inherent problems – I’ll explain why, and what we should do instead.
First, we can’t pump nearly enough petroleum here in the US to get us back to importing less than 50% of the oil we use. The only way to get off foreign energy is through domestic alternatives, primarily renewables. The problem is that it costs countries like Saudi Arabia about $2-3 per barrel to pump oil, and most consumers make their fuel choice based on what is cheapest at the pump. We can’t come close to $2-3 per barrel with any alternative fuel, now or in the foreseeable future. We can almost compete with the current market price for petroleum (at $55/barrel) – but not with how cheap they can lower prices. So, once alternatives start making a subtantial dent in our petroleum imports, enough that the oil countries are not pumping at full capacity, they can lower prices enough to force alternatives back out of the market, and still be making a tidy profit.
In fact, the natural rebound effect (as soon as we start decreasing how much petroleum we use, petro prices will fall down, encouraging us to use more) will do that. Say we can produce biodiesel for $30 per barrel. Saudi Arabia and other oil countries could sell oil for $20 per barrel and still have a huge profit margin. Since the majority of consumers buy based solely on price, that will just force alternative fuel producers back out of the market, and put us right back being wholly dependent on petroleum.
So, how do we get around that – how do we eliminate this rebound effect? Only by guaranteeing that domestic alternative fuels will be cheaper than petroleum. There are two ways of doing that – subsidizing the alternatives with tax credits, or increasing the cost of petroleum.
The first problem with credits is that it promotes deficit spending – something we have enough problem with without large credits.
Second, credits are only viable at all as long as “alternatives” remain alternatives. As soon as those industries expand, and we start using a substantial amount of fuel, the credits become too expensive.
Third, credits are complicated to manage. Take the new biodiesel credit as an example. Because of how it was written, it does not apply to pure biodiesel (B100), only to blends – but it was never clarified how much petroleum needs to be blended in for it to count as a biodiesel blend, or why ANY petroleum should need to be blended in to receive the credit. Further complicating the issue is who takes the credit – the producers aren’t allowed to (since it is based on how much biodiesel is purchased), end users aren’t allowed to, so that falls to the middlemen – the distributors. But, what if the user purchases directly from the producer? No credit allowed. Or, if the distributor does not have enough profit (and therefore enough tax liability) to make use of the credit? They can’t take it. So, this biodiesel credit largely is useful for large, profitable companies in the middle of the supply chain – primarily oil companies, who buy a little bit of biodiesel, and reap most of the credit themselves. Additionally, it specifically favors particular alternative fuels (in this case a few types of biodiesel and ethanol, but not all types) over others, further manipulating the market.
A petroleum tax would be far simpler to manage, would become LESS expensive as the alternatives grow, and does not promote deficit spending at all.
This can be looked at in two ways – first, a petroleum tax would pass the hidden costs of petroleum (now paid for out of income taxes) on to the consumer as should be done in a free market, in a revenue-neutral system (not increasing or decreasing taxes overall, just shifting where some of the taxes are assessed). Second, it can be viewed as a form of “sin tax”, used to discourage people from doing something harmful to the common good.
Our collective petroleum dependence results in the need for an incredible expenditure of income tax dollars to maintain the free flow of oil around the globe – a key element of our National Security Strategies going back decades. This and other external expenses are currently paid out of income taxes, hiding the true cost of petroleum, favoring it in the market over alternatives. This is backwards from what our approach should be. In addition to these external costs, there is also a tremendous negative economic impact from the amount of money we spend each year buying oil from other countries – which could reach $250 billion this year alone. That money leaves our economy completely, accounting for roughly 40% of our entire trade deficit. If that money were instead spent on domestically produced fuels, it would produce millions of jobs, and significantly boost our overall economy. So, clearly it would be beneficial to the country economically to reduce our use of oil, for directly reducing that trade deficit. Add to that the external costs of petroleum dependence – defense spending, strategic petroleum reserve, our foreign aid (most of which goes to the middle east), etc.. – see my articles in the Politics section for more on this.
It seems only reasonable that the external costs of our petroleum dependence should be passed on to the consumer of that petroleum, rather than having everyone subsidize that cost, regardless of how wasteful or frugal they are with petroleum use. Additionally, that would lessen the ability of the rebound effect or intentional price controls to prevent a transition to domestic alternatives, as well as encouraging greater fuel efficiency, without any need for subsidies.
This would not equate to a tax increase – rather a shifting of where the taxes are assessed for paying for those external costs of petroleum dependence. At the same time, this acts as a “sin tax”, encouraging more efficient use of petroleum, as well as use of alternatives – which will boost our economy, and gradually eliminate the need for military efforts to maintain the free flow of oil. This shift of tax assessment should be done gradually, to allow people time to adapt (i.e. buy more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels industries to gradually develop, to handle the increasing demand as the petroleum tax increases, etc.). I’d recommend that it increase incrementally by 20 cents per gallon each year for five years, for starters (for gasoline and diesel, as well as other fossil fuels used in transport – CNG and LPG, as well as methanol produced from fossil fuels). An across the board flat drop in income tax rates would be calculated at the end of each year based on the revenue from the petroleum tax up to that point – so that overall taxation is neither increased nor decreased. Effectively, this “Petroleum Acquisition Assessment” (rather than “tax”) would be used to pay the portions of our budget incurred due to petroleum dependence – a sizable chunk of defense spending, strategic petroleum reserve expenses, etc., so that they do not need to be paid for with income taxes.
This rise in petroleum prices would make it easier for alternatives to compete on fair grounds, as well as encouraging more efficient use of fuel by increasing its price.
Yes, it would be a regressive approach in nature, being harder on lower income people (at least in the meantime, as the large shift to domestic fuels and more efficient vehicles is happening). This can be resolved somewhat by making the reduction in income taxes associated more progressive in nature, so lower incomes see more of the reduction.
Overall, I feel this plan is far simpler to implement, and would be far more effective than any other approach (tried or proposed) for ending our foreign oil dependence. Various alterations could be made to perhaps make it better (or worse), such as having the “PAA” apply only (or more) to foreign oil rather than all oil. That really isn’t necessary or realistic though, as there simply is not enough domestic petroleum to meet our demand. The result would just be that domestic oil producers would raise their prices inline with the higher price of foreign oil due to the PAA, just increasing their profits. The approach would still have its desired effect, for the most part, but would not generate as much revenue (so income taxes couldn’t be reduced as much), and sending more money into oil companies’ pockets.
Thanks go to Rich for coming up with the “friendlier” PAA name for this, rather than calling it a “Petroleum Tax”.
-- Mike Briggs
The goal of freeing ourselves from foreign oil – in fact foreign energy supplies in general – should by now be held by virtually all Americans, as the costs of our continued dependence become more and more apparent. In fact, the potential cost once global oil supplies can not meet global demand (a point most experts expect us to reach within the next 10 years) will be far larger than anything we’ve seen thus far – with oil prices skyrocketing, and wars likely fought overtly over that remaining oil supply.
Ultimately, the best path towards energy independence will consist most likely of increasing efficiency through the use of parallel (plug in) hybrid vehicles, combined with a gradual transition away from petroleum by running them (and our current vehicles) on an increasing percentage of liquid biofuels – ethanol and biodiesel. But, using credits and other incentives to promote these fuels have inherent problems – I’ll explain why, and what we should do instead.
First, we can’t pump nearly enough petroleum here in the US to get us back to importing less than 50% of the oil we use. The only way to get off foreign energy is through domestic alternatives, primarily renewables. The problem is that it costs countries like Saudi Arabia about $2-3 per barrel to pump oil, and most consumers make their fuel choice based on what is cheapest at the pump. We can’t come close to $2-3 per barrel with any alternative fuel, now or in the foreseeable future. We can almost compete with the current market price for petroleum (at $55/barrel) – but not with how cheap they can lower prices. So, once alternatives start making a subtantial dent in our petroleum imports, enough that the oil countries are not pumping at full capacity, they can lower prices enough to force alternatives back out of the market, and still be making a tidy profit.
In fact, the natural rebound effect (as soon as we start decreasing how much petroleum we use, petro prices will fall down, encouraging us to use more) will do that. Say we can produce biodiesel for $30 per barrel. Saudi Arabia and other oil countries could sell oil for $20 per barrel and still have a huge profit margin. Since the majority of consumers buy based solely on price, that will just force alternative fuel producers back out of the market, and put us right back being wholly dependent on petroleum.
So, how do we get around that – how do we eliminate this rebound effect? Only by guaranteeing that domestic alternative fuels will be cheaper than petroleum. There are two ways of doing that – subsidizing the alternatives with tax credits, or increasing the cost of petroleum.
The first problem with credits is that it promotes deficit spending – something we have enough problem with without large credits.
Second, credits are only viable at all as long as “alternatives” remain alternatives. As soon as those industries expand, and we start using a substantial amount of fuel, the credits become too expensive.
Third, credits are complicated to manage. Take the new biodiesel credit as an example. Because of how it was written, it does not apply to pure biodiesel (B100), only to blends – but it was never clarified how much petroleum needs to be blended in for it to count as a biodiesel blend, or why ANY petroleum should need to be blended in to receive the credit. Further complicating the issue is who takes the credit – the producers aren’t allowed to (since it is based on how much biodiesel is purchased), end users aren’t allowed to, so that falls to the middlemen – the distributors. But, what if the user purchases directly from the producer? No credit allowed. Or, if the distributor does not have enough profit (and therefore enough tax liability) to make use of the credit? They can’t take it. So, this biodiesel credit largely is useful for large, profitable companies in the middle of the supply chain – primarily oil companies, who buy a little bit of biodiesel, and reap most of the credit themselves. Additionally, it specifically favors particular alternative fuels (in this case a few types of biodiesel and ethanol, but not all types) over others, further manipulating the market.
A petroleum tax would be far simpler to manage, would become LESS expensive as the alternatives grow, and does not promote deficit spending at all.
This can be looked at in two ways – first, a petroleum tax would pass the hidden costs of petroleum (now paid for out of income taxes) on to the consumer as should be done in a free market, in a revenue-neutral system (not increasing or decreasing taxes overall, just shifting where some of the taxes are assessed). Second, it can be viewed as a form of “sin tax”, used to discourage people from doing something harmful to the common good.
Our collective petroleum dependence results in the need for an incredible expenditure of income tax dollars to maintain the free flow of oil around the globe – a key element of our National Security Strategies going back decades. This and other external expenses are currently paid out of income taxes, hiding the true cost of petroleum, favoring it in the market over alternatives. This is backwards from what our approach should be. In addition to these external costs, there is also a tremendous negative economic impact from the amount of money we spend each year buying oil from other countries – which could reach $250 billion this year alone. That money leaves our economy completely, accounting for roughly 40% of our entire trade deficit. If that money were instead spent on domestically produced fuels, it would produce millions of jobs, and significantly boost our overall economy. So, clearly it would be beneficial to the country economically to reduce our use of oil, for directly reducing that trade deficit. Add to that the external costs of petroleum dependence – defense spending, strategic petroleum reserve, our foreign aid (most of which goes to the middle east), etc.. – see my articles in the Politics section for more on this.
It seems only reasonable that the external costs of our petroleum dependence should be passed on to the consumer of that petroleum, rather than having everyone subsidize that cost, regardless of how wasteful or frugal they are with petroleum use. Additionally, that would lessen the ability of the rebound effect or intentional price controls to prevent a transition to domestic alternatives, as well as encouraging greater fuel efficiency, without any need for subsidies.
This would not equate to a tax increase – rather a shifting of where the taxes are assessed for paying for those external costs of petroleum dependence. At the same time, this acts as a “sin tax”, encouraging more efficient use of petroleum, as well as use of alternatives – which will boost our economy, and gradually eliminate the need for military efforts to maintain the free flow of oil. This shift of tax assessment should be done gradually, to allow people time to adapt (i.e. buy more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels industries to gradually develop, to handle the increasing demand as the petroleum tax increases, etc.). I’d recommend that it increase incrementally by 20 cents per gallon each year for five years, for starters (for gasoline and diesel, as well as other fossil fuels used in transport – CNG and LPG, as well as methanol produced from fossil fuels). An across the board flat drop in income tax rates would be calculated at the end of each year based on the revenue from the petroleum tax up to that point – so that overall taxation is neither increased nor decreased. Effectively, this “Petroleum Acquisition Assessment” (rather than “tax”) would be used to pay the portions of our budget incurred due to petroleum dependence – a sizable chunk of defense spending, strategic petroleum reserve expenses, etc., so that they do not need to be paid for with income taxes.
This rise in petroleum prices would make it easier for alternatives to compete on fair grounds, as well as encouraging more efficient use of fuel by increasing its price.
Yes, it would be a regressive approach in nature, being harder on lower income people (at least in the meantime, as the large shift to domestic fuels and more efficient vehicles is happening). This can be resolved somewhat by making the reduction in income taxes associated more progressive in nature, so lower incomes see more of the reduction.
Overall, I feel this plan is far simpler to implement, and would be far more effective than any other approach (tried or proposed) for ending our foreign oil dependence. Various alterations could be made to perhaps make it better (or worse), such as having the “PAA” apply only (or more) to foreign oil rather than all oil. That really isn’t necessary or realistic though, as there simply is not enough domestic petroleum to meet our demand. The result would just be that domestic oil producers would raise their prices inline with the higher price of foreign oil due to the PAA, just increasing their profits. The approach would still have its desired effect, for the most part, but would not generate as much revenue (so income taxes couldn’t be reduced as much), and sending more money into oil companies’ pockets.
Thanks go to Rich for coming up with the “friendlier” PAA name for this, rather than calling it a “Petroleum Tax”.
-- Mike Briggs
Last edited by RichC; 05-02-2006 at 12:47 PM.
#23
05-02-2006, 12:55 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lewisville (Dallas), Texas
Posts: 3,155
Back to the Initial Post...
The guy from Penn. in his 12mpg Ford Explorer suggesting he is being ripped off with $3 a gallon gas - cheaper than most parts of the world. The taxes at the pump does not completely pay for the highways.
This is not a ripoff but a failure to face reality on his part.
When I grew up, it was the "welfare cases" wanting something for nothing - now it's neo-cons on the price of gas.
This is not a ripoff but a failure to face reality on his part.
When I grew up, it was the "welfare cases" wanting something for nothing - now it's neo-cons on the price of gas.
Last edited by Delta Flyer; 05-02-2006 at 01:05 PM.
#24
05-02-2006, 01:14 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Originally Posted by Delta Flyer
worthwads for some reason took a shot at public transportation, even though that was the furtherest thing on my mind as I was pointing out the whining guy that chose to drive in a 12mpg vehicle.
Lets go in the other direction - maybe hard right and turn all the public roads to private authorities. Would it save money? Would roads in remote areas be drivable? Should heavier vehicles pay more due to the wear and tear they put on the roads?
I'm at a loss to explain those that think large vehicles should not be charged more - that's the capitalist way.
Lets go in the other direction - maybe hard right and turn all the public roads to private authorities. Would it save money? Would roads in remote areas be drivable? Should heavier vehicles pay more due to the wear and tear they put on the roads?
I'm at a loss to explain those that think large vehicles should not be charged more - that's the capitalist way.
"...Carol Ainsworth, a retired worker from Houston, said the rising cost of fuel "is pricing me out of visiting my relatives," who live less than two hours away in Beaumont. She said she now calls them on the phone instead.
"If the president was going to do something about foreign oil, he would do something about public transportation instead," said Ainsworth."
Surely there is bus service already from Houston to Beaumont.
Everyone wants public transportation for someone else, but will not use it themself until things make car travel the worse option. Right now availability of public transportation isn't the problem, car travel is still most peoples easier option. I've said it before recently here, but Boulder CO has a premier transit system that is underutilized because we have a population that likes the idea less cars, just not their own.
Larger vehicles are already charged more tax per mile travel since they get terrible mileage, the capitalist way is already worked that one out.
#25
05-02-2006, 01:20 PM
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Originally Posted by worthywads
I'm humored by both your whining guy, and the whining woman's comments from the article you posted. That was in the Denial post though.
"...Carol Ainsworth, a retired worker from Houston, said the rising cost of fuel "is pricing me out of visiting my relatives," who live less than two hours away in Beaumont. She said she now calls them on the phone instead.
"If the president was going to do something about foreign oil, he would do something about public transportation instead," said Ainsworth."
Surely there is bus service already from Houston to Beaumont.
Everyone wants public transportation for someone else, but will not use it themself until things make car travel the worse option. Right now availability of public transportation isn't the problem, car travel is still most peoples easier option. I've said it before recently here, but Boulder CO has a premier transit system that is underutilized because we have a population that likes the idea less cars, just not their own.
Larger vehicles are already charged more tax per mile travel since they get terrible mileage, the capitalist way is already worked that one out.
"...Carol Ainsworth, a retired worker from Houston, said the rising cost of fuel "is pricing me out of visiting my relatives," who live less than two hours away in Beaumont. She said she now calls them on the phone instead.
"If the president was going to do something about foreign oil, he would do something about public transportation instead," said Ainsworth."
Surely there is bus service already from Houston to Beaumont.
Everyone wants public transportation for someone else, but will not use it themself until things make car travel the worse option. Right now availability of public transportation isn't the problem, car travel is still most peoples easier option. I've said it before recently here, but Boulder CO has a premier transit system that is underutilized because we have a population that likes the idea less cars, just not their own.
Larger vehicles are already charged more tax per mile travel since they get terrible mileage, the capitalist way is already worked that one out.
#26
05-02-2006, 01:22 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lewisville (Dallas), Texas
Posts: 3,155
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
I'm just trying to figure out why there are so many bridges in need of repair and so many potholes. Must be the compacts beating them to death.
#27
05-02-2006, 01:40 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Originally Posted by ender21
So then...... everything is working splendidly I guess. Whew!
If Carol Ainsworth want to make it from Houston to Beaumont for $3, things aren't splendid. Question the local roads department as to why potholes aren't getting fixed. Tax receipts went up with larger vehicles, maybe the shortsighted government spent that money elsewhere.
#28
05-02-2006, 01:55 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lewisville (Dallas), Texas
Posts: 3,155
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Finally say the quote from the article on public transportation! Wish it was quoted so it would not have seen so - out there.
The guy I quoted seems to think something is wrong because gas is $3 a gallon. There is: too many people driving 12mpg vehicles to bring prices down to $1.50 like they were around 2000. The only way to bring it down to $1.50 is to ration gas - think that would fly?
The guy I quoted seems to think something is wrong because gas is $3 a gallon. There is: too many people driving 12mpg vehicles to bring prices down to $1.50 like they were around 2000. The only way to bring it down to $1.50 is to ration gas - think that would fly?
#29
05-02-2006, 03:07 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Originally Posted by Delta Flyer
Finally say the quote from the article on public transportation! Wish it was quoted so it would not have seen so - out there.
#30
05-02-2006, 06:41 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Deep in the heart of Florida
Posts: 351
Re: Time: Pain at the Pump
Originally Posted by blinkard
I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to agree with Ralph Nader when he said that only a disastrously bad President would get the public to wake up.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
