What are John McCain and Hillary Clinton thinking, suggesting that the federal government suspend the excise tax on motor fuel for the summer? That moms and dads will load up the dog and the kids to see the U.S.A. in a Chevrolet?

In a word, it's absurd.

Bear with us as we point out the many flaws in this proposal, which might sound like a winner on the campaign trail but is a loser in terms of tax policy, energy policy and conservation efforts.

OK. Say the federal government suspends the 18.4-cents-a-gallon fuel tax — even just for the summer. The resulting savings would be only a couple of bucks and change each time one fills up a 13-gallon gas tank. That's going to be sufficient incentive to drive to California to see the Redwood Forest? Never mind that the cost of everything else — food, lodging and entertainment — has gone up, too. What's the solution there? Eliminate restaurant and transient room taxes for the summer, as well?

No one likes to pay taxes, but they are a fact of life. The federal excise tax on motor fuel funds the Highway Trust Fund. The fund apportions money to the states for highway and bridge planning, improvements and construction. A portion also is used for mass transit projects. Revenues also are used for the leaking underground storage tank trust fund. The tax is also used for deficit reduction.

Considering the nation's huge need for infrastructure improvements, which should be painfully obvious to Utah drivers as they encounter a number of road and overpass replacement projects this summer, this is hardly the time to tinker with these earmarked revenues.

Perhaps the fatal flaw of the proposal is the presumption that lower gasoline prices — by virtue of suspending the federal excise tax — would encourage more people to drive. That would mean increased consumption of motor fuel. With gasoline prices already inching toward $4 a gallon, increased demand would drive up the price, perhaps so much that suspending the federal tax wouldn't even be a factor as those dollars add up on the LED displays at the gas pump.

Americans need to see this proposal for what it is, a feel-good tactic intended to demonstrate that the well-heeled McCain and Clinton "feel our pain."

Over the long run, such a tactic wouldn't ease our pain. It would only increase the pain of the states that rely on these revenues. And forget Clinton's plan to recover the lost revenue by taxing Big Oil. At the end of the day, consumers will pay those taxes, too, in the form of higher motor fuel prices.

Americans would be better served by a long-term strategy to someday break crude oil's choke-hold on world politics and the economy. Where are the stump speeches about that?