Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal gas tax increase needed for roads, bridges and highways
The Contra Costa Times ^ | January 24, 2015 | Contra Costa Times

Posted on 01/25/2015 11:12:00 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The president was a conservative's conservative. He had campaigned on reducing taxes and made it his legacy. But when a gas tax increase was proposed, it was a different story. In his weekly radio address, he said, "We simply cannot allow this magnificent (highway) system to deteriorate beyond repair."

That was 1982. The president was Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately, the disrepair Reagan feared has come to pass. The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents hasn't been raised since 1993, and the Highway Trust Fund is severely underfunded. A 10- to 15-cent a gallon increase would provide enough money to meet the Highway Trust fund needs for the next 10 years.

It deserves bipartisan support.

The American Society of Civil Engineering gave the nation's highways a grade of D in 2013. Californians would give them an F.

Call it a user fee, if we must, to appease the anti-tax crusaders. Reagan did. Several Republican governors are justifying state gas tax increases that way.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, told the Silicon Valley Leadership Group last year that the gas tax was problematic because vehicles are using less gasoline. It's a problem in the long run, for sure. But something has to happen now. As highways and bridges deteriorate, the cost of repair rises exponentially.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports a gas tax increase. The largely Republican organization knows how important safe and functional transportation is to the country's economic health. It needs to convince Congress. Advertisement

Sen. John Thune, R-N.D., the third-ranking Senate Republican, is on board. So is Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Modernizing infrastructure should be a conservative goal because of the high costs that crumbling roads place on businesses and drivers.

(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: bridges; energy; gasoline; gastax; highwayfunding; highways; infrastructure; roads; ronaldreagan; sanjose; tax; taxhike; transportation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: Bob434
Step away from the keyboard.

FMCDH(BITS)

41 posted on 01/26/2015 9:02:40 AM PST by nothingnew (Hemmer and MacCullum are the worst on FNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
They, the interstates, are mainly decrepit in urban areas. The municipalities and states where they are should use their damned state gas tax money to fix them.

And what are the municipalities supposed to use to fix their surface streets?

42 posted on 01/26/2015 9:04:16 AM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

I’ve already told you that states collect their own significant portion of taxes on gas. The corrupt ‘municipalities’ often piss this money away when the state doles out its share to them. You can drive around the interstates inside the city of Atlanta and see scores of blacked out interstate lights and damaged interstates because they piss the money away on city voters and ‘outreach’. You figure it out.

I don’t have to give you an alternative for what you want. I just don’t want to be taxed for stupid useless crap, and it is my right as a citizen to tell them to go pound sand.

You can try, but you’ll never get them (government) to enter into a BINDING agreement to do what they say they will when they are trying to get more taxes levied.


43 posted on 01/26/2015 9:28:16 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

[[Remember the $600 billion stimulus that was supposed to take care of all that?]]

Exactly, where did the money go?

And remember the 800 billion fine that tobacco companies faced that was supposed to go toward ‘increased medical costs due to smoking’- Where did that money go too? Because they keep raising taxes on Ciggs to cover the supposed increased costs (and even that is debatable, with smokers dying FASTER than non smokers, meaning they needed LESS long term care) AFTER they soaked the tobacco companies-

THIEVES- they are all thieves-


44 posted on 01/26/2015 10:01:33 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Only about 36 billion, if I remember correctly, was intended for the supposedly shovel-ready road projects.


45 posted on 01/26/2015 10:27:10 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Je suis Charlie, you miserable Islamist throwbacks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug
They did use the money like they said they would, right?

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question.

46 posted on 01/26/2015 10:30:04 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Je suis Charlie, you miserable Islamist throwbacks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Only a small portion of the porkulus was designated for road and bridge projects.


47 posted on 01/26/2015 10:36:05 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Je suis Charlie, you miserable Islamist throwbacks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Mass transit, bike paths, beautification projects and, until recent years, pork.


48 posted on 01/26/2015 10:38:36 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Je suis Charlie, you miserable Islamist throwbacks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Yup, but remember - it was sold to us as needing to be passed because it would help our roads and bridges. Let us have a public audit of this first before raising taxes.


49 posted on 01/26/2015 12:09:03 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

There is no carrying out a calm conversation with some people...


50 posted on 01/26/2015 12:13:37 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

Constant questions in retort is not a calm conversation. You offered nothing but more diversion. It’s irritating.


51 posted on 01/26/2015 1:24:00 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson