O'Reilly condemned higher gas taxes to reduce consumption as “social engineering,” then called for higher vehicle taxes to reduce consumption

Special Programs Climate & Energy

Written by Eva Howe

Published

On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly criticized increased gasoline taxes as “secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff” and declared that “we don't need any more taxes on anything” -- then endorsed a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles.

On the January 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly decried tax increases on gasoline as “secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff” and declared that “we don't need any more taxes on anything” -- but he then endorsed a tax on the sale of gas-guzzling vehicles.

Apparently referring to The New York Times' editorial board's advocacy of a gasoline tax, O'Reilly stated that the Times wants to “raise tax on oil a buck” to force people to conserve and to get “more money flowing into the federal government, so the federal government can make -- you know, do this secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff that The New York Times is committed to.” Then he declared that in order to conserve energy “we” need “to tell Detroit, 30 miles per gallon. Any vehicle that doesn't get it, then we're going to tax that vehicle through the roof -- 25 percent surcharge tax on any vehicle that doesn't get 30 miles to the gallon.”

The federal government currently levies a "gas guzzler tax" of between $1,000 and $7,000 on cars whose combined (city and highway) fuel economy is less than 22.5 miles per gallon.

From the January 30 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: And, you know, The New York Times, their solution is, well, let's raise tax on oil a buck. So, therefore, overnight, your $2.50 a gallon [gasoline] becomes $3.50 a gallon. The New York Times thinks this is swell because that would drive down consumption. Then you'd be forced to conserve, forced not to buy as much. Well, fine, but every other product in the United States rises in price because everything else is dependent on oil. It takes oil to get the product into the store, to get the plane in the air. And that would lead to an enormous recession. New York Times has no clue, of course, because all they want is more money flowing into the federal government, so the federal government can make -- you know, do this secular progressive, social engineering crazy stuff that The New York Times is committed to.

Anyway, we don't need any more taxes on anything. What we need to do is get alternative energy. The way to do that is to tell Detroit, 30 miles per gallon. Any vehicle that doesn't get it, then we're going to tax that vehicle through the roof -- 25 percent surcharge tax on any vehicle that doesn't get 30 miles to the gallon. Guess what? Most vehicles will be getting 30 miles to the gallon. That's what the government should do. One example.