Posted on 07/28/2015 5:08:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Later this week, the highway trust fund officially runs out of money unless Congress authorizes more funding for roads and bridges. But the bill that is being pushed by Democrats and some Republicans is starting to look like a Republican Party Dunkirk that could infuriate conservative voters and even wind up costing the GOP the 2016 election.
The $320 billion six year public works funding bill would raise government spending, increase taxes on businesses and possibly provide a new lease on life for the corporate welfare queen -- the Export-Import Bank. This happens every time a highway bill comes up for a vote. Republicans toss out their fiscal conservative credentials and line up for the pork.
Some Republicans are even suggesting that a gasoline tax hike should be part of the plan. This would sock middle class voters, who haven't seen a pay raise in seven years and are financially strained. Polls show Americans hostile to new gas taxes paid at the tank.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is drooling for a deal and pressing Republicans to drop their "no new taxes" pledge in a bipartisan package. Of course, the army of Washington lobbyists, from the AFL-CIO to road builders and the civil engineers (who say that hundreds of billions of dollars more need to be spent), are pulling a full-court press to get the money deal done.
But it's a complete dud. One plan would link "reform" of the corporate tax system -- which is admittedly an abomination -- with highway funding. But that deal is a net tax increase on American companies who already face the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The White House thinks that as much as $200 billion could be plucked from corporate America over the next six years. Tax reform should be tax neutral at best -- not a back door way to raise taxes.
One plan would force U.S. companies to pay a new "minimum tax" of between 10 and 15 percent on their overseas profits whether they bring the money back to America or not. Currently the corporate tax isn't applied to those earnings until the money is brought back to these shores.
If we want to fix the corporate tax system, simply cut the tax rate from 35 percent to closer to the international average of 25 percent. But that isn't what's on the table here and the plan being hatched would put U.S. firms in a deeper competitiveness hole. We are already seeing American companies such as Medtronic and Burger King flee the United States.
As for a gasoline tax hike, every penny increase pulls $1.5 billion from American families. A 15-cents-a-gallon increase would cost consumers and businesses close to $25 billion. Republicans were elected to cut taxes, not raise them.
The big canard here is that the highway fund is running out of money and that bridges will start collapsing if taxes aren't raised. Nonsense. The federal gasoline tax of 18.3 cents a gallon and other fuel taxes raise some $35 billion a year -- more than enough to pay for roads and bridges and highways. The problem is about 20 cents of every dollar raised isn't used to fund roads. Rather it goes to transit projects and bike paths and other pork. Unions make out like bandits because of the Davis-Bacon Act, which inflates wages and salaries on federal construction projects.
The worst feature of this highway robbery bill is that it could sneak in a new lease on life for the Export-Import Bank. Republicans would be surrendering to the corporate cronyism lobby at a time when we should be pushing companies like Caterpillar and Boeing off the dole.
In place of the wretched tax-and-spend deal, Congress needs to instead repeal Davis-Bacon and make sure that every dollar of gas tax money is used for roads. These two steps solve the "infrastructure crisis" that Washington created.
A tax increase to fund more pork road projects with new corporate welfare funding is the antithesis of what Republicans told voters they stand for in 2014. If they are dumb enough to pass a highway bill that contradicts all of their promises to voters, they deserve to lose Congress in 2016.
Only a moral person can distinguish between a better and a worse decision. So you’re faced with two possible choices:
1. Evil.
2. Evil squared.
You have three choices: 1, 2 or choose neither and default to whichever happens. What do you do?
‘The problem is about 20 cents of every dollar raised isn’t used to fund roads.”
In other words, congress should be passing the, “highway funding act” which says that ALL money apportioned to highway repair and maintenance cannot be deviated for other non automobile related purposes.
There you go. One bill, two sentences. Now make the rats vote on it.
Sorry, but I don’t believe in this binary decision scenario you set up here...
Supporting evil is supporting evil. You may feel this is justifiable or comfortable. I do not.
The “right” to vote is not a mandate to support evil. You have many “rights” which you do not necessarily exercise.
The lesser of two evils only serves to perpetuate the cycle.
I imagine Mitch and Johnny Boy were the lesser of two evils. How’s that working out for us?
It’s not about which party is more evil.
Anyone who votes for this is evil and should be voted out of office.
As has been repeatedly explained on this site, you always have more than two choices. You just have to be willing to stand up for principles and convince others to do the same. If you're voting GOP-E Republican as a lesser of two evils, you aren't helping to fix the problem.
No difference between the GOPe and the Democrats. In fact the GOPe is even worse because they pretend to be our friend.
That’s right, it’s not binary. Yet the fact is that if you don’t vote, you vote with the majority. So someone who didn’t vote for McCain or Romney, as flawed as they were, elected Obama by default.
I was responding to the person I posted to.
I felt that this highway bill was evil and that there is no lesser evil if anyone supports this bill.
The claim the the GOP is a lesser evil is no longer true.
Yes,I agree. At this point, conservatives need to choose sides. The war for control of America has begun and you are either for America as conceived by our forefathers or you are on the side of the Washington Cartel. Cruz has crossed Rubicon and I respect him for it.
“Yet the fact is that if you don’t vote, you vote with the majority. So someone who didn’t vote for McCain or Romney, as flawed as they were, elected Obama by default.”
Not meaning offense, but you need to review and understand how the Electoral College works.
We do not elect by popular national vote.
Each State has a vote that determines the Electoral votes received by a candidate. My state distributes its Electoral votes in a winner-takes-all decision. Unless my vote counted for +2 million votes, it would not have changed the outcome of the 2012 election of Obama - or the elections for your other mentioned RINOs.
That said, it is never a binary decision. Especially when the fish are biting. Or any of a thousand other alternatives.
Best.
Yep, I like Cruz too.
Nice dodge. Either way you vote with the majority when you don’t vote. Furthermore, there’s never going to be a perfect candidate, so you’re always going to have to choose.
Well, no. You may view it that way, but I certainly don’t.
I find it strange that you view not voting as voting. I do not.
I already made my choice.
Your wife and you are deciding where to go for dinner. You refuse to decide. She decides and by default you accept her decision. Therefore not voting defaults to majority rule. Capisce?
“Your wife and you are deciding where to go for dinner. You refuse to decide. She decides and by default you accept her decision. Therefore not voting defaults to majority rule. Capisce?”
You are creating a very funny read!
If I defer to my wife’s preference, wanting to please her, I’m fulfilling the Scripture. We are not voting.
Even if we accepted your truth claim about “going with the majority” on its face, I found your use of “math” to justify itearlier just silly.
The simple facts are that if someone votes, they voted.
If they do not vote, they did not exercise their right - for whatever reason. They willingly withdrew from the process. They did not vote with the majority.
Further, those (you) who did vote for RINOs bear full responsibility for their (you) elected RINOs and the destruction they (you) cause our country, and for supporting the RINO party that opens a winning path for Democrats by running those very RINOs.
The only ones who can rightly be critical are those who did not vote for those causing destruction.
“A pox on all your households!” as the saying goes.
It’s 2010. Known RINO Mark Kirk is running against Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. Did I make a mistake voting for Kirk?
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.