MediaWatch: February 1993

Janet Cooke Award: Time Calls for Gas Tax Increase at least 24 Times in Four Years

Fill Your Tank, Empty Your Wallet

Time declared Earth the "Planet of the Year" in 1989, and boldly included a laundry list of statist recommendations to save the Earth, including: "Raising the federal gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon, from 9 cents to 59 cents, over the next five years could renew drivers' interest in fuel conservation."

Since then, Time's desire for a bigger gas tax has become a crusade: the magazine has called for higher gas taxes at least 24 times in the last four years. For its one-sided campaign in its "news" pages for higher gas taxes, Time earns the February Janet Cooke Award.

Time has already called for a gas tax hike four times in the first seven issues of 1993. In the January 25 edition, columnist Andrew Tobias wrote: "As for gasoline -- which costs about $3.75 per gal. throughout Europe -- Ross Perot was right. Phase in a 50-cent tax over five years, and you raise $50 billion a year."

In the same issue, Chief Political Correspondent Michael Kramer applauded Clinton's campaign duplicity: "Clinton is right to back off his plan for a middle-class tax cut and right again to `revisit' the proposal to increase gasoline taxes, regressive levies he routinely dismissed as unfair during the campaign."

The February 1 issue included Senior Writer Eugene Linden's idea that the U.S. "might follow [Norway's] example and implement a carbon tax, which encourages efficiency and the use of cleaner fuels." In the February 15 issue, John Greenwald called the gas tax "an ideal target" that makes "good economic and ecological sense." In order, here are the other tax hike requests:

May 22, 1989: Reporter Dick Thompson asserted Bush's "refusal even to consider an increase in the gasoline tax have raised concern that he is not the kind of forceful, decisive leader the country needs to deal with the growing environmental crisis."

September 19, 1989: Associate Editor Michael D. Lemonick recommended "an increase in federal gasoline taxes to bring U.S. fuel prices closer to those in Brazil and the rest of the world."

October 9, 1989: Andrew Tobias proposed a budget plan. "Too costly? Any shortfall in this package could easily be met by adding a few pennies to the gasoline tax."

December 18, 1989: Eugene Linden suggested "The federal gasoline tax should be increased substantially -- to at least 60 cents per gal., from the current 9 cents per gal., over the next four years."

April 17, 1990: Michael D. Lemonick wrote "The time has come to get tough on conservation. The first step should be an immediate increase in the federal gasoline tax."

August 8, 1990: Reporter S.C. Gwynne urged "A stiff gasoline tax of $1 per gal. would encourage consumers to choose more economical autos."

August 20, 1990: Reporter Richard Hornik preached "Americans pay too little for energy generally and for gasoline in particular. A 50 cent per gal. gasoline tax phased in over five years would encourage conservation and raise $50 billion in revenues."

October 29, 1990: Essayist Dominique Moisi stated "Americans have no constitutional right, for example, to cheap gasoline. In Europe we pay the same price for a liter of gas as Americans pay for a gallon -- or four times as much."

November 5, 1990: Richard Lacayo reported: "In no area did Congress show less courage than on gasoline levies. The new deal will raise the present 9 cent-per-gal. tax by a nickel, costing the average driver a mere $34 a year. The plan rejected four weeks ago by the House had proposed a 10-cent hike. Even that was only half the amount economists say is needed to encourage fuel conservation."

December 24, 1990: Eugene Linden felt "If a person wants to drive a gas guzzler, it makes sense for him to pay higher gas and sales taxes."

February 18, 1991: Richard Lacayo complained a program "is expected to shun the two most effective means to put the brakes on fuel consumption: a hike in the gas tax and a higher federal fuel-efficiency standard for U.S. autos."

December 9, 1991: White House reporter Dan Goodgame explained "A good start would be an increase of 25 cents per gal. -- less than the amount by which prices rose during the Gulf War -- with further increases of five cents a year."

March 23, 1992: Time suggested "Tsongas' higher gasoline tax would help curb America's energy use and would provide funds for mass transit and rebuilding roads and bridges and would reduce the budget deficit." On March 30, 1992, Bush's environmental "inaction" included: "Refused to consider higher energy taxes."

April 20, 1992: Dan Goodgame proposed we "Increase excise taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco."

Almost every issue last June included a gas tax plug. On June 1 came a list of "What They Should Do But Won't" at the U.N. Earth Summit: "Put an international tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." June 8's "The Week" section complained: "One thing the [energy] bill avoided was any strong action to deal with the nation's excessive appetite for oil," including a gas tax hike and increase fuel efficiency standards.

On June 15, Science Editor Charles Alexander insisted: "Other nations are taking the lead....Scandinavian countries have imposed stiff taxes to discourage energy consumption." On June 22, Washington Bureau Chief Stanley Cloud declared: "A 12-cent additional tax on gasoline would yield $54.8 billion in five years."

In the January 29 Washington Times, economist Bruce Bartlett reported everything Time has not: "the energy industry and energy in general are among the most heavily taxed things in the United States today." He demonstrated that U.S. oil companies pay greater corporate taxes than non-oil companies, and that state taxes and the "windfall profits" tax add another 10 to 20 percent to their effective tax rates. Bartlett also cited a 1983 Data Resources Inc. report predicting "a 10 percent energy tax would reduce real GNP growth by about half a percentage point per year and initially raise the Consumer Price Index by almost a full percentage point."

Now that the Clinton administration is looking at energy taxes, can Time report effectively on both sides of the debate? Calls to Time Science Editor Charles Alexander, the magazine's environmental point man, went unreturned.

Featured Posts

Bozell Slams Hillary’s Shills in Media: ‘They Are Covering for’ Her

Get the Latest News From CNSNews

Get the Latest Media Analysis on NewsBusters