Posted on 01/23/2021 8:42:50 AM PST by george76
When President Joe Biden announced former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg as his pick for Transportation Secretary, many scratched their heads. Why would he tap someone who oversaw a small budget, in a small town, in the midwest for such a roll? That puzzle is finally coming together.
It turns out that Biden favors Buttigieg's transportation views, specifically the idea that America should move away from the gas tax and instead opt into a tax based on the number of miles a person travels. It would be a new way to provide cash for the Highway Trust Fund, which currently funding from the federal gas tax. As it currently stands, the federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel.
Liberal states, like California, Oregon, Washington State, and Colorado are already contemplating this so-called "alternative."
Biden's administration would have to figure out how to pay for his $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which includes $160 billion for the transportation department.
During his confirmation hearing with the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on Thursday, Buttigieg explained his take on the gas tax.
"I think all options need to be on the table. As you know, the gas tax has not been increased since 1993, and it has never been pegged to inflation, and it's one of the reasons why the current state of Highway Trust Fund is that there's more going out than coming in," Buttigieg said about a potential tax increase. "In the long term, we need to bear in mind also that as vehicles become more efficient and as we pursue electrification, sooner or later, there will be questions about whether the gas tax can be effective at all."
Instead, the transportation nominee wants to consider taxing Americans on the number of miles they drive.
"A lot has been suggested recently about the idea of vehicle-miles-traveled-based, so if we're committed to the idea of user-pays, then part of how you might do that would be based on vehicle miles traveled," he said. "But that raises, of course, concerns about privacy and there remains some technological questions too. These are examples of some of the things that could be part of the solution, but I know that's going to have to be a conversation, not only in the administration, but with Congress too."
Should the Biden administration move forward with taxing Americans based on the number of miles they drive on any given day, rural America would be the ones disproportionately impacted. They live further outside of metro areas. Many travel 20 to 30 miles one way to work or to do any kind of major grocery shopping. Farmers, especially those who live even further out – a few hours from a metropolitan area – would be punished because they don't live in the inner cities.
This is a prime example of why rural folks feel forgotten about. It's always about what's best for those who live in the cities, not about those who grow and transport your food, or do the dirty work no one else is willing to do. It's about those who work in fancy offices in New York City, not the loggers and miners who work in dangerous conditions to provide heating options for the very people who despise them.
UN Agenda 21 ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Bull Obama. They'll do both -- one on top of the other.
Thanks for the ping.
So much leftism is just idiotic adolescent self-righteousness coupled with a naïve belief that reality is far simpler than it is. Simply absurd.
Buttigieg’s transportation views, specifically the idea that America should move away from the gas tax and instead opt into a tax based on the number of miles a person travels>>>>>>>>>
Lets describe that more accurately.
A limitation on the Freedom to Assemble and the Freedom to travel.
This fudge packer needs a reboot edge edge.
the entire media will swoon over every thing Buttjuice does
Put me on the list...Thanks
This proposal is going to go nowhere and if they try to do it by EO it should be ignored or sued.
So then what are they going to do? Hire millions of people to check odometers on cars. . . .oh wait a minute. . .there’s the cell phone that will probably require a government ap on it.
I’m sure Peter Pan will be chauffeur driven A taxpayer expense everywhere he goes as a secretary of transportation. Politicians never have to pay the taxes or follow the rules that they put on the little people.
Cars produce almost zero wear and tear on the roads. That’s all from trucks. So of course taxing car fuel is the answer.
Yes - They’ll do both — one on top of the other.
Fun fact: Prius/Tesla drivers hardest hit.
You beat me to it! They’ll do both.
Fuel efficient vehicles (compared to twenty or thirty years ago) have really hurt gas tax revenues.
Oops.
You are added. Thanks
I think it has come to the point where we need to fight back on these big city states. Libs have been in favor of removing retailers, media, and other sellers of goods or ideas from the playing field, not be ostracizing them but by refusing to deal in the products. So, why not have the energy producing states and the farm belt just decide to whom they will sell their products to. For instance, around Feb 1 would be a good idea to cut off natural gas from Texas and Louisiana to say the NE. Same for farm goods, don’t sell to the combines that move goods to say DC. A few years of such actions might just change their way of thinking of using economic war against these areas that are in their view, fly over country. What they are doing now is just an extension of what the Tariff of Abominations was designed to do. Force the cotton producing states into economic slavery to the NE textile companies. Just much broader in concept.
Violation of equal protection and Commerce clauses.
I’m Sorry, we just can’t afford the Tax to ship Food and Supplies to the New England States
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.