Gas surcharge's benefits

Re "Gas surcharge could help deficit, environment" (Viewpoints, Nov. 17): Severin Borenstein's suggestion of imposing a gasoline surcharge on a sliding scale to help alleviate California's budget crisis as well as curb global warming is well worth considering.

In fact, it would be wise to explore the possibility of a nationwide surcharge. In addition to raising much-needed revenue, the resulting drop in U.S. oil consumption from conservation would choke the economies of the Middle East. Having less money going into the Arab coffers may give us more leverage in fighting the war on terrorism. I would much rather sacrifice at the pump by paying more for my gasoline than sacrifice the lives of our youth in a continual "oil war."

– Anita Prietto Cueto, Sacramento

Higher tax a bad idea

Severin Borenstein's call for higher gasoline taxes illustrates the disconnect between an academic's view of the world and the economic reality that working people face every day.

Borenstein has to admit that "California is faced with an unprecedented budget crisis" and that the gas surcharge would disproportionately impact the poor. Instead of viewing this as a reason to avoid hiking the cost of something as essential as gasoline, he sees it as an opportunity to forcibly change behavior while filling the state's coffers.

The high cost of gasoline has already forced most people to cut back on driving or, for those who can afford it, to purchase more energy-efficient vehicles. Another tax on gasoline will only make it harder for everyone to make ends meet.

The last thing we need is another tax on gasoline.

– Kristine Hunt, Walnut Creek

executive director, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Look at the weight fee

Yes, a "gas surcharge could help deficit, environment." But just calling it a "surcharge" won't fool anybody. It will still be called a "tax" by more than a third of the Legislature, and it will never pass. Is there anything we could do to help the state deficit and the environment without inventing some new tax?

Yes, there is. It's established in law as a "fee" and is already in force statewide. "In the long run, it would avert the surge in demand for gas guzzlers" even better than a gas surcharge would. In fact, it would positively encourage a lot of existing gas guzzlers to be replaced at the earliest opportunity. It is an annual weight fee, ranging from $8 for the lightest up to $360 for the heaviest. For the exact figures, see www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/fees/weight_less.htm.

You've probably never heard of this weight fee because of an immense loophole: It only applies to pickup trucks – on the absurd rationale that all pickups are "commercial" vehicles. Even if that were true (obviously it isn't), so what? Pounds are pounds. Heavier vehicles burn more fuel, emit more exhaust and wear out roads and bridges. More than 20 million "passenger" vehicles are exempt from this fee. Why?

– Don Petron, Sacramento

GOP isn't all right-wingers

Re "Bid to lead party begun" (Page A3, Nov. 15): As a lifelong Eisenhower Republican and a retired U.S. history teacher, I would like to offer some historical perspective on the smoking ruins of today's Republican Party.

Contrary to popular belief, the Republican Party is not totally made up of right-wing ultraconservatives. The party has been proud to have many differing views within. The base of the Republican Party has always been the moderates (with leaders such as President Eisenhower). We have also had a liberal wing (led by people such as Nelson Rockefeller) and a conservative wing (led by notables such as Barry Goldwater). To say that anyone who doesn't hold a conservative view is a RINO (Republican in name only) is flat wrong!

Dan Lungren, who is running to become the House minority leader, is right that the party needs to be overhauled. But if Lungren is going to be the change agent for the Republican Party, he'd better do some real self-examination. He supported President Bush (the engineer of this Republican Party train wreck) 90 percent of the time, he supported the invasion of Iraq, he went along with trampling the Constitution and did not denounce torture.