Posted on 12/08/2011 8:01:15 AM PST by redreno
(CNN) -- Based on recent history and what's likely to happen to the nation's infrastructure, it's an inescapable conclusion: We will need new and different sources of funding if we are to have the type of transportation system that is needed to support economic prosperity.
For the past 75 years, the U.S. road network has provided the foundation for much of the nation's economic development. This network has not come without a cost; estimates are that the replacement value of the nation's roads is $1.3 trillion.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Oh, they'ed bring that back with a vengeance, along with all other speed limits.
The GPS technology to do this will also monitor vehicle speed and you would receive automatic citations for exceeding any speed limit.
Likely they would require a cash bank account linked to the GPS and fees and fines would be deducted as you drive. Hit zero and it disables your car till you deposit more money.
Every tax payer, then consumer, is paying for the roads, every driver pays extra through taxes, permits and fees for direct use.
Taxing by the mile will be like raising the taxes on smokes... you'll get less of it. Sure every commodity price will go up, and those of us that drive (even economy cars) a good distance for work will have less to live on but recreational driving will drop.
Then our betters will sit around and ponder allll that money that is no longer there - "we need to raise taxes because..."
The real win for the left of course is to control your movements.
Also, Line them up in front of one another so we can dispatch at least 20 or more with one .308 round which will save a lot of ammo.
Here locally the county government (very lib) tripled the cost of a road that goes from four lanes to two lanes, and then back again to four lanes. They now want to put roundabouts and bike paths using gas taxes. they have also taken four lane roads and reduced them to two lanes in order to force more people to take mass transit (they actually run on this platform).
The gasoline tax is the ultimate, most fair “per-mile road tax” possible, and it is already in place. The more “raod miles” you log, the more taxes you pay. The gasoline tax has built-in incentives such as gasoline (energy) efficiency and optimum vehicle maintenance, and allows people to decide for themselves if they wish to drive a big “gas guzzler” Ford Expedition or an enclosed golf cart “smart car”.
Scum like this guy Michael D. Meyer are simply trying to help their Democrat party come up with yet another tax, and naturally, CNN is there to give him a platform.
I disagree with you on that one.
As the author of this article points out, a car that is 15% more fuel-efficient than the one next to it on the highway doesn't have 15% less of an impact on costs. And newer technology has resulted in vehicles that don't even use motor fuels, but they still drive around on our public roads.
How is it CNN programming has a lock on cruise ship TV news? It’s the only source of news available. I have to go on a cruise for Christmas and need to load up my laptop with 7 days of conservative reading material. If there is a device that will jam a cable channel I will take that too.
From the article: “We will need new and different sources of funding if we are to have the type of transportation system that is needed to support economic prosperity.”
There’s the delusion in a nutshell.
The author sincerely believes that the problem is finding more money, and when the state gets more money, economic prosperity will continue.
This is like going up to my boss and saying, “I really need a raise, along with a higher mileage fee, in order to support the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.” Meanwhile, unspoken, of course, I’ve already put myself into debt that is equal to 100 percent of my annual income.
God help us.
They did the same thing with cars.. Zero has been pushing the dolt and other “fuel efficient” cars for 3 years now. others pushed it too. They even dump our tax dollars in to cars that will never use a drop of gasoline while on our streets (Leaf and other plug ins)
he;; they even pushed to raise the MPG of OTR trucks. use less fuel they all screamed. Now we are, and they are itching about lower gas tax income.
I would think they would bear a significant chunk of the cost as most every item consumed is trucked into NYC.
Will Mexican truckers be exempt?
We’ve already paid for the roads and their maintenance with our taxes. Taxing us per mile to drive on them is double taxation. In NY State, besides providing the money to build it, NY State taxpayers have been paying to use the Thruway and maintain it since it’s inception back in the mid 1950’s, despite the fact that it was supposed to be free after the last of the bonds used to build it were paid off in 1996. The writer of this article can kiss my a$$.
Things were rosy for about two years, at which time they discovered that the roof of the building needed to be replaced, the parking lots had to be resurfaced, and large cracks began to form in the exterior walls because the poor drainage from one parking lot (which they had neglected for years) eroded the foundation underneath the building.
They are now facing repair and maintenance bills that are enormous. If they never spend another penny on regular building operations and continue to collect the lower condo assessments they've put in place because they're so damn cheap, it will take 3-4 years for them to come up with the money they need.
These people are delusional misfits, aided and abetted by a whole social structure that is based on the idea that they can get something for nothing.
What is really at issue here is the implementation of a tracking system that will be used to enforce the new per mile system (and also keep track of everywhere one drives).
The extra tax revenue generated by the new privacy killing system is just icing on the cake.
Well, I stopped reading right there.
I'm no tech expert (save me fellow freepers), but I believe that cruise ships are the satellite customer and ISP for Internet and as such can filter the TV and Internet as they wish for everyone on the ship. To beat this you would have to have your own satellite gear and a view of the sky.
CNN probably gives the programming for free because of the captive market.
These east coast idiots cannot conceive of the vast open spaces of the Texas panhandle or the Arizona desert much less the reason Montana is called Big Sky Country. Instead, they think the entire world can be connected by a high speed train and a mass transit system like their tawdry grimy cities use.
Maybe before some CNN talking head opines about such things, they need to drive from Yuma to San Diego just for a medical appointment.
Whenever people drive from point A to point B to recreate, deliver goods, or commute to work it, always results in secondary economic activity. Taxing transportation is just not very bright from an economic perspective. Transportation infrastructure projects would be one of the few legitimate reasons to actually issue public debt if the government could at all be trusted to spend the money wisely. The money to maintain the infrastructure is one of the few legitimate things the gov’t should be spending money on. It should come from all the taxes already being collected on incomes, sales, et c.,.
And then there’s the issue others have brought up of controlling movement. Restricting freedom of movement within a country is always one of the first actions of every bad actor to come down the pike. It’s at the top of every would-be despot’s ‘to-do’ list. Makes it pretty hard to organize any kind of effective resistance effort.
Anybody advocating restricting the movement of citizens within the country should be pre-emptively shot, hung, and then fed to the Hyenas at the zoo, as a general precaution against tyranny.
Are there that many stupid people in this country that don’t understand that the gas taxes we pay were supposed to support road and highway maintenance and construction but were diverted to the RR and other things instead? Charge more taxes and it will get diverted again.
The proponents of this scheme can go eat a bag of dicks.
I agree with Lancy Howard, because it is a matter of relative tax paid. (This assumes the government is going to tax gasoline no matter what.)
You pay fewer overall taxes by driving a fuel efficient car. If you drive a gas guzzler, the percentage is the same, but you use more gas, and thus pay more taxes. I think that is the point Lancey Howard was making, and I agree with it.
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.