Posted on 05/25/2011 12:52:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
Increasing the federal gas tax should be considered to pay for a new transportation bill, a key Democrat said Tuesday.
Rep. Nick Rahall (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said President Obama should be more specific about how he plans to fund a long-term transportation spending bill, and that raising the gas tax should be one of the options.
"We've not had an increase in the gas tax since 1993," Rahall said Tuesday during a speech at the Transportation Construction Coalition's 10th annual Washington fly-in.
"Cars are more efficient," Rahall said. "They get better mileage."
But with gas prices near $4 a gallon, Rahall also acknowledged the unlikelihood that the political will exists in Washington for any proposal to raise the gas tax to get serious traction.
"I know the political suicide, bludgeoning, any other other bad word you want to use" that would come from the proposal, he said to laughter at the Transportation Construction Coalition meeting.
Congress is gearing up to begin work on the so-called Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU. A current short-term version of the bill, which funds highways and public transportation, is in place until September, but transportation advocates want a longer six-year bill.
The Obama administration has proposed spending $556 billion on transportation over that period, but hasn't yet said how it expects to pay for that spending.
The GOP has criticized the Obama administration for not suggesting how it would pay for its proposed version of the SAFETEA-LU bill, and Rahall on Tuesday said he agreed the president should be more specific.
"We need the administration to come on board to help us with the financing issue," he said.
Republicans in both chambers have indicated that they do not want to spend as much as President Obama has proposed on the new transportation bill, regardless of how it's paid for.
One possibility, Rahall said, is indexing the gas tax to the inflation rate.
To a Democrat, the solution to every problem is a tax increase.
Bad weather? (raise taxes)
Bad economy? (raise taxes)
Good economy? (raise taxes)
A Comet headed for Earth? (raise taxes)
I’ve seen that when it happens. O’Reilly really lit into Barney Frank, and rightly so
I’d say yes IF:
1. New judges and lawyers are hired to prosecute all house and senate sleazebags, along with the scum-bag-in-chief for possible felonies.
2. New prisons are constructed (really ugly and uncomfortable ones) are constructed to house them until their execution.
3. I am hired to run the guillotine.
Hmmm, please allow me sufficient time to thoroughly and carefully consider this proposal before giving a response. OK, I’m ready. NO!
The problem with all this is Congress is irresponsible when it comes to financial matters. They’ve had the money and could have made the repairs/upgrades. Instead they spent it on entitlements. Now they want to force us to pay again. I just don’t think so. Too bad this fact is missed by 99% of the voters and 100% of the media.
If this is the case, they should show - TO THE PENNY - how the existing gas taxes have been spent, in order to justify that they are being good stewards of our money.
The people mover in Detroit is rider funded at a rate of about 7% and mass transit systems are considered successful if they’re rider funded at 25% or more.
Transportation money pays $20 million for a system of sensors in San Fransisco parking lots so drivers can find parking with a phone ap. Seattle likes the SF system so much that they’re now asking for funds.
It would be interesting to remove all substitutive "assistance" (taxpayer money) from train, local light rail and bus service so everyone had to pay full price for a ticket.
Ten bucks says "racism" would be in the first sentence of the resulting wails and moans.
.
The Federal transportation expenses from the gasoline tax should be reduced to expenses for the “U.S.” designated highways (they are “interstate”), the Interstate Highway System highways, and bridges and tunnels that span state borders along those highways.
Use of Federal gasoline taxes for any other purpose should be eliminated. Most likely that would mean it should be possible to lower Federal gasoline taxes.
The states will complain, but if they address their own state’s priorities, they can improve the priorities of how their own gasoline taxes are spent, and, if it is truly needed, raise them.
The state parties, Democrat and GOP, run this fiction on their state’s taxpayers. They campaign on keeping the state taxes low and getting gifts from Uncle Sam to help do that; as if, in the end, the money is not coming out of their own taxpayers pockets anyway. It’s a scam.
Actually, Exxon's take - it's net profit - is more like 8.75 cents on a dollar; or at $4.00 a gallon, more like 35 cents a gallon.
But, your point is still a good one, in as much as the total state and federal tax take on a gallon is, on average, over 35 cents a gallon. It averages 49.5 cents nationally, between a high of 61.3 cents in the West to a low of 38.5 cents in the South.
Download the May 2011 Summary at:
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/
Baraq and several members of his cabinet are on record as saying European levels of fuel prices are desireable.
If Republicans can’t hammer them with this, we deserve 4 more years of Obama.
Come to think of it, why IS there a federal gas tax anyway? Shouldn't highways be a state responsiblity?
Last couple of years, they dug up all the major roads in Chicago, even roads that were in good condition, supposedly to spend the stimulus money on infrastructure. They even dug out concrete roads that were in excellent condition in my sub-division and replaced them with tar that will need heavy maintenance every few years. You couldn’t go anywhere in Chicago without hitting road constructions. I thought we were done with infrastructure spending in Chicago. Apparently not.
I get you point, however:
The recent uptick in gasoline prices began around 2008-2009, when the oil markets started boosting prices above $100 a barrel. Those market changes had a number of causes, but the biggest among them were "world" demand - China, India, Brazil etc - vs world supply, and monetary - a cheaper dollar tends to raise the world price of globally sold commodities priced in dollars.
That still leaves your point about greater U.S. exploration and production. And yes, on that point you are right. The U.S. has identifiable additional reserves that investment in exploration and production could bring to market. The question is - at what cost?
The Saudi's sell as much oil as they do for two reasons - they have a lot and most of what is in production now is not expensive to get to.
As much as the U.S. has reserves it has not tapped, they will not come to market at the cost that Saudi light crude does.
I think the U.S. can get more oil products from domestic resources than it does today. The cost of doing that and world energy markets at the time that material comes to market will determine whether or not gasoline prices will have any downward pressure from that, in addition to the domestic economic benefit of more energy dollars staying in the domestic economy, instead of paying for imports (as much).
Someone smarter than you and I could make economic predictions about the price of gasoline based on what is known today. I can't, and I don't assume that if we just get more domestic oil production we will necessarily get a lower price in gasoline. I think getting more domestic production is worth doing regardless of the price of gasoline; if only to reduce imports and be more secure with regard to our energy sources.
I get you point, however:
The recent uptick in gasoline prices began around 2008-2009, when the oil markets started boosting prices above $100 a barrel. Those market changes had a number of causes, but the biggest among them were "world" demand - China, India, Brazil etc - vs world supply, and monetary - a cheaper dollar tends to raise the world price of globally sold commodities priced in dollars.
That still leaves your point about greater U.S. exploration and production. And yes, on that point you are right. The U.S. has identifiable additional reserves that investment in exploration and production could bring to market. The question is - at what cost?
The Saudi's sell as much oil as they do for two reasons - they have a lot and most of what is in production now is not expensive to get to.
As much as the U.S. has reserves it has not tapped, they will not come to market at the cost that Saudi light crude does.
I think the U.S. can get more oil products from domestic resources than it does today. The cost of doing that and world energy markets at the time that material comes to market will determine whether or not gasoline prices will have any downward pressure from that, in addition to the domestic economic benefit of more energy dollars staying in the domestic economy, instead of paying for imports (as much).
I think that greater domestic exploration and production would be a good thing, regardless of what would happen to domestic gasoline prices; if only to reduce imports and be more secure in our energy sources.
I think the Dims attacks on our own oil companies is rooted in the anti-capitalist indoctrination so many of them have been infused with by America's Marxists and the Libs the Marxists "educated".
So, the Dems say our REWARD for reducing gasoline consumption is PUNISHMENT??
We don't need an increase in the gas tax, we just need to use it to finance road and bridge maintenance and construction, not mass transit, not bike paths, not demonstration projects, not to help balance the budget, JUST ON ROADS AND BRIDGES.
Taxes, taxes, taxes.
You make it, we take it.
Pay up - someone has too. :D
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.