It should be done in stages so that the poor/middle class aren't sent straight into poverty just trying to survive.

These subsidies should be incrementally moved over to alternative fuels and modes of transportation. Imagine what $158 Billion dollars a year would do for our rail infrastructure?

What helps the poor is a dynamic, high-tech, open economy with low taxes and red tape and enrepreneurship, not gas that is a little cheaper and constant meddling by foreign oil cartels.

We'd be much better off without these subsidies, so I voted the first choice.

If we were to cut them all at once, there would be some pain, but after that, everybody would be better off on average.

Instead of hidden subsidies for the oil companies, why don't we try a more progressive handout geared towards the actual needy?

For example, we can expand the existing program of providing federal and state money to replace older, dirtier cars with newer more fuel efficient ones. I'm currently over the income cutoff for the program, but I think it's an excellent one: it just needs more publicity and perhaps some process changes to expand its use. Last time I took my old beater for a state inspection, they sent a letter informing me that I could get $3,500 of government money towards a new fuel efficient car, if I qualified. That is not chump change considering a new Honda Fit runs you about $16,000 in my area.

I know when I was in college we did calculations that the easiest (most cost-effective) way to improve air quality (NOx, SOx, ozone, etc.) in large cities was to replace all cars from before 1988 (possibly earlier, I can't quite remember) with new (post 2002) models. Most people driving old cars (as opposed to luxury SUVs) are doing it because they can't afford a newer model (for example, my boyfriend who drives a 1982 Turcell, a car that is actually older than he is). This proposal has the advantage of using an existing program, which will reduce initial overhead costs. And it actually targets people who need the money, instead of subsidizing everyone, even those who chose to buy a luxury, gas-gulping vehicle when times were good. So what do you think?

To truely level the field, and be fair to tax payers, ALL government subsidies should be eliminated.

Anonymous is right. A high-tech economy and clean, advanced infrastructure help everyone a lot more than cheap gas can. There is no reason for people to be poor at all in developed nations. The solutions exist, and they don't involve oil, not in the long run.

We're paying the true price of gas whether it's at the pump or through taxes taken from our paycheck. It all evens out at the end.

The only reason to have you pay taxes that pay subsidies is to blind you from being able to see a $7 to $10 gallon of gas at the pumps. There is no way those in power want this to happen because they already get paid that much, what they want is for you to continue to pay that and for you to think they want to "do something about it".

If the true price was revealed directly, despite the fact people already pay it, even those who don't understand the complexities of subsidies, where their taxes go and who their governor is would FLIP OUT. In fact, they're more likely to do so since they don't realize they already pay that much.

It sounds awfully paranoid to think so but there really isn't a reason for them to want lower prices. When the people have less reason to look at you, you tend to get away with more things and get your legislation passed a lot easier. If the people really turned on the oil companies it could get pretty ugly in the visceral sense.

@Cybercat:

We crunched those numbers in the original post. The difference is at most 65 cents per gallon, and a fair number of questions were raised about the reliability of the subsidy estimates because no source was given.

All I would ask is that the same or equal subsidies and favors be given to alternative technology.

I argue that poor people don't benefit much from the gas subsidies. They can't buy Escalades or Ferraris. Many of them already ride the bus.

Let's take a quick look at why it's so hard for so many.

If you work for a living, Uncle Sam takes:

10% Income+6.20% Social Security+1.45% Medicare

= 17.65% = 25.30% if you're self employed

at $8,026 = 22.65% & 30.30% self employed

at $32,551 = 27.65% & 35.30% self employed

and so on....

Most states also have an income tax on top of all this.

So seriously, what the working poor need from Uncle Sam is not gas subsidies that help oil companies & terrorists but for him to keep his hands out of their pockets.

"A recent study"
Would it be that hard to name who did the study, or link to it?

LA: The hyperlink to the post regarding the study was right there, in the second sentence. Admittedly it does not say "hyperlink here to study" - we don't write that way. And this is a survey to get opinions, not a discussion of the study.

The Cato institute has done several studies like this and their methodologies are so biased as to be laughable. This is an organization that promotes the idea that if we could just get rid of all federal regulation and programs like social security, medicaid then the market would take care of all our problems.

Don't get me wrong, I think the oil companies should fend for themselves (they have the cash), but I would trust the GAO or some other independent organization without an axe to grind.