Democrats think gas taxes are too low, and four-dollar-a-gallon gas is too cheap. Associated Press raised eyebrows with a story headlined: "No gas tax holiday: Congress considers raising pump tax to help repair crumbling highways." Reporter Jim Abrams found that "Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel." But the lawmakers he cited were Reps. James Oberstar and Peter DeFazio, both liberal Democrats.
John McCain is quoted briefly announcing that economists didn’t like his gas-tax-holiday proposal, and Sen. Jim DeMint is allowed to argue that Congress is wasting billions of highway dollars on earmarks. But almost the entire AP story is dedicated to the views of those Democrats and "nonpartisan" groups lobbying for a gas-tax hike.
Notice how reporter Abrams suggests that the objective truth is that highway spending is too low, but he makes no attempt to give the reader any idea what the budgetary trend is, whether spending has been increasing year after year. He merely suggests that current spending is below what Congress wants to spend:
Just three years ago, that trust fund enjoyed a surplus of $10 billion. Even without a tax freeze, the fund is projected to finish 2009 with a deficit of $3 billion. That that could grow as Americans drive less and buy less gas because of higher pump prices.
The consequence is that only about $27 billion in federal money will be available next year to states and local governments for new infrastructure investment even though the current highway act calls for spending $41 billion a year. For many, the solution is to raise rather than suspend or cut federal fuel taxes, which haven't changed since 1993.
Abrams let Sen. DeMint lament earmarks, but he then betrayed no attempt of challenging the Democrats with that argument. He merely moved on to letting them announce their big tax-and-spend liberal goals:
Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.
"We'll put all things on the table," Oberstar said, but the gas tax "is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax."
At the very least, the gas tax should be indexed to construction cost inflation, DeFazio said.
Then came the "nonpartisan" advocates for tax hikes:
The nonpartisan National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission concluded in a report this year that the U.S. needs to spend $225 billion annually over the next 50 years to create a highway and transit system capable of sustaining strong economic growth. Current spending, at federal, state and local levels, is about $90 billion a year.
Among other revenue-raising possibilities, the commission recommended gradually increasing the current federal fuel taxes to 40 cents a gallon.
The American Road & Transportation Builders Association is calling for a 10-cent-a-gallon raise and indexing the tax to inflation. With construction costs soaring because of competition for building materials from China and other developing nations, the tax rate would have to be about 29 cents a gallon to achieve the same purchasing power as the 18.4-cent rate imposed in 1993, the association says.
No "objective" story on gas-tax hikes would be complete without reminding Americans that their gas taxes are far below those progressive Europeans:
Including state and local levies, people in the U.S. pay about 47 cents on average in taxes for a gallon of gasoline. Fuel in many European countries costs $8 to $9 a gallon, with half or more of that going to taxes.
Other ideas that will be on the table when lawmakers write a bill next year including more toll roads and public-private partnerships, congestion pricing and user fees where drivers pay a tax based on how many miles they drive.
Will other reporters follow up on how the Democrats are aiming not to give drivers some financial relief, but to drag more money out of their household budget?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'd like to see how much of
July 21, 2008 - 06:41 ET by taterI'd like to see how much of the actual taxes go towards road repairs.
Why people keep electing democrats is beyond me...do they just hate having their own money?
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
There is no reason to think
July 21, 2008 - 07:43 ET by motherbeltThere is no reason to think that they will use the increase to repair anything. We have already been paying gas taxes through the nose, and they have dumped it into the general fund to pay for entitlements, etc. instead of what it was meant for; witness the Minneapolis bridge collapse.
So their line is basically "We have blown the road repair money on other stuff, so now we need to tax you more to raise money for road repairs."
Also, they have still not figured out that you can't increase tax revenues by raising taxes. Doesn't work.
But in their big-government fantasy world, both of those premises make perfect sense.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Great point mother. This
July 21, 2008 - 08:04 ET by Free ThinkerGreat point mother. This was in the Journal today and it speaks to the effectiveness of higher tax revenues through lower taxes. Everyone knows this and to me ignoring the facts is just another effort towards the ultimate goal of a socialist, totalitarian government. Wow, that sounded conspiratorial when I wrote it but it is hard for me to see it any other way when I listen to policies proposed from the left because I am keenly aware of history. This is real information from 2006 released by the IRS last week.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Raising gas tax
July 21, 2008 - 06:59 ET by billbThere is no need to raise taxes for road repair. All the dems have to do is take back all the money they diverted to the mass transit hole ie; AMTRAK
You got that right. The
July 21, 2008 - 07:55 ET by forestYou got that right. The gas tax goes to highways and public transport. It takes money from those who drive and subsidizes the money-losing public transport. One of many not-so-subtle ways the gubmint redistributes cash.
This could be a devastating
July 21, 2008 - 07:08 ET by forestThis could be a devastating issue if McCain chooses to run with it. Same goes for Republicans running for Congress.
Gas prices are sky high so
July 21, 2008 - 07:19 ET by DaBirdGas prices are sky high so people are driving less which means gas tax revenue is down. So what do the Democrats offer? Raise gas prices more so people drive even less. Then any additional tax revenue is lost to less gas consumption, a break even scenario at best. What a clueless lot these fools are. BTW, this Oberstar tool is notorious in Minnesota for diverting highway dollars to bike paths and such.
Throw More Money at It
July 21, 2008 - 07:32 ET by allanfWhy is that Democrats always think the solution to a problem they did not fix with money is to throw more money at it? What ever happened to working more efficently?
The definition of Insanity...
July 21, 2008 - 09:37 ET by ontheright...doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Kind of appropriate dont you think?
You are absolutely
July 21, 2008 - 07:41 ET by Free ThinkerYou are absolutely correct. McCain and the republican party have around $100 million right now and if it were me I would be running ads all day long on the democrats lack of an energy plan and the recklessness they have towards our economy. People can see it everyday at the pump, they just need to know it is the left in this country that is causing it.
Husband that Money
July 21, 2008 - 07:45 ET by allanfThe conventional wisdom is that voters don't begin to pay attention to a Presidential race until after Labor Day. Right now, all this stuff about Obama is background noise in the mind of many voters.
I willing to bet if you asked people in a poll if Barack Obama was (1) a US Senator or (2) a former Rock Star, the second choice would be in double digits.
Siphoning the Suckers.
July 21, 2008 - 08:12 ET by CrashThe left has been pushing for higher taxes and higher gas prices since the bleak years of the Carter debacle. It's also time to teach basic economics in the public schools instead of teaching kids how to recycle, use condoms or go green.
THE ECONOMY IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE; we must defend capitalism. Here is how the right beats them and their bad schemes November; by playing their words over and over. If that means expensive product placement during prime-time ... do it! Even if it results in taking money from McCain. Now is the time to educate the public about who is really screwing the little guy. It damned sure is not the "rich." We create jobs, opportunities and wealth. Negative market forces like big government programs take them away. Now, put that in your tank and run on it.
Hello? Shouldn't income taxes be used to pay for infrastructure
July 21, 2008 - 08:06 ET by Dee BunkThese buffoons act like special taxes are the only way to get money for roads and other infrastructure. That is what the billions they get in income tax is supposed to pay for. That and a national defense. They want to spend all the money they get in income tax on social programs and then blame decreased driving on crumbling infrastructure.
Yeah - roads used less should wear out quicker if you use liberal logic.
Then where would the money come from...
July 21, 2008 - 09:47 ET by ontheright...to support the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation wellfare recipients; you know, the "new deal" grandmothers, moms and babies??
Gotta keep the non-tax paying constiuents happy (read: pander) so they will get up and out onto the Dimocrat buses come election day.
But of course, you knew that - AND you know Obama is only offering an updated "New Deal" with his Hope and Change mantra. We (those of us who actually pay taxes) will be taxed out of existence shortly; then who will support the "huddled massess", hmmm. Bet the Dumbocrats didn't think about that one...
If...
July 21, 2008 - 13:08 ET by JDWIf I could, I would gladly donate all of my existing Social Security, Medicare... to charitable causes. By the time I am eligible these accounts will not exist.
JDW
SAPPY NEWS
DAILY WAVE
Here's the problem
July 21, 2008 - 08:21 ET by candanceThis is the dirty little secret no one will tell you - the more people "conserve energy" by driving around less, the government's revenue goes down. So their plan is simply to charge more for the same product in order to keep the same profit.
As it gets more expensive people start driving even less, and the poor are forced to give up their cars, which will make the government charge even more.
Thus cars will eventually become a luxury for the rich.
This is the ultimate goal of the global warming agenda. They want the masses walking the streets in the slums. I know that sounds harsh, but it's simply the realistic conclusion.
Just like tobacco
July 21, 2008 - 08:31 ET by Kirk HallThe states do the same with the tax on tobacco. Tax you to pay for the health of smokers and others. People quit using tobacco so they have to raise the tax. No one but the tobacco users complain about it but it is the same thing.
exactly kirk
July 21, 2008 - 08:44 ET by candanceIt started with demonizing Big Tobacco and has moved to Big Oil. The government is targeting industries to drive into bankruptcy.
Ah ... here's the rub!
July 21, 2008 - 09:53 ET by Crash"As it gets more expensive people start driving even less, and the poor are forced to give up their cars, which will make the government charge even more." Citizen's of the city of Atlanta learned that lesson the hard way when their government mismanaged their water resources; didn't build enough reservoirs (that's reserves), so they restricted water usage. In doing so they didn't sell enough water, so, they're raising taxes to make up for it. Ta da ... Problem created!
"This is the ultimate goal
July 21, 2008 - 11:03 ET by Cureboy675"This is the ultimate goal of the global warming agenda. They want the masses walking the streets in the slums."
Um. To what end? Why would that be the ultimate goal? What purpose would that serve?
It's simple: fewer cars
July 21, 2008 - 14:25 ET by Indiana JoeFewer cars means less pollution. How do you affect people's behavior? Hit them in the pocketbook, right?
The problem is, such solutions will not affect those who can afford the higher prices. Ergo, owning a car becomes a rich man's perk, just like before Henry came up with the Model T.
By the same token, rising home-energy prices will lead to those "slums." Well-kept slums, maybe. "Ghettoes" is probably a better word.
exactly Indy
July 21, 2008 - 14:35 ET by candanceIf you look at the eventual end of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, you see the same pattern - enlarged slums where food is rationed and things like running water are expensive. Lefties here seem confident "that could never happen in America" but like I've said before, countries don't plan for that when they start down that path.
But I still understand how
July 21, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Cureboy675But I still understand how that means leftists WANT most of society walking through the slums. You may personally believe it will be the ultimate side-effect of their plan. But you do really honestly think that is what they are hoping and planning for?
It is all about power. An
July 21, 2008 - 20:47 ET by HermanoIt is all about power. An Orwellian Utopia has a ruling upper class and a subserviant lower class. If everyone in the lower class has the same things, then all will be fine...as long as they don't revolt and overthrow the ruling class.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
Well OK then. I hope to
July 21, 2008 - 20:52 ET by Cureboy675Well OK then. I hope to find out in the next few days whether or not I'm in the ruling upper class or the subserviant lower class. Then I'll know whether or not I'm up for this whole Utopia thing.
Because, I really do want most people in slums and without cars. I saw that in the brochure for Leftists and said "Bingo!"
So do tell, Cureboy
July 21, 2008 - 21:03 ET by BlondeWhere do you fancy yourself?
In the ruling upper....or the subservient lower?
Inquiring minds want to know.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Well, duh. The ruling
July 21, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Cureboy675Well, duh. The ruling upper class. I can't be hanging out in the slums. Taking the bus to work. Have you ever rode the Number 2 bus down Dodge Street? Its a freak show...One step above having chickens on the bus.
Heavens to betsy, I can't have that.
Well, there you go
July 21, 2008 - 21:19 ET by BlondeGood thing you're hanging with us evil conserves.
Wolves or sheep.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
well cureboy
July 21, 2008 - 21:04 ET by candanceLike I said above, most of the public doesn't know what's coming until it's too late. I don't think the rank and file libs really want to force their neighbors into poverty - but the leadership such as Al Gore and Barack Obama, yes.
Boy oh boy. I dare say the
July 21, 2008 - 21:23 ET by Cureboy675Boy oh boy. I dare say the United States of America really dodged a bullet then. Who would have thought for eight years we were a heartbeat away from that when Gore was VP? And then in 2000, we were just a couple thousand votes away from Al Gore realizing his wicked and horrific goals. The goal of deliberately, and with cold calculation, forcing millions into poverty.
Astonishing that every single reporter and Republican 527 group working the past 10 years has failed to bring our attention to the fact that Al Gore and Barack Obama have the same common dream of forcing their very neighbors into poverty.
Astonishing
July 21, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Free StinkerAstonishing that every single reporter and Republican 527 group working
the past 10 years has failed to bring our attention to the fact that Al
Gore and Barack Obama have the same common dream of forcing their very
neighbors into poverty.
Yeah, well . . . they're negligent!
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
not really cureboy
July 21, 2008 - 21:42 ET by candanceSites like NB have been working to convince folks for a long time, but it's a taken a while to get the word out. See back in the old days when your buddies had this handy little thing called the Fairness Doctrine, it was much harder for conservies to compete. There was no Fox News, no Rush Limbaugh, no internet. All we had was Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.
Also, before Reagan stepped into the White House Americans were paying something like 70% of their income in taxes, were stuck in a standoff with Russia, had to wait for their ration of gasoline just to drive to work, and dealt with stagflation that was killing their paychecks.
We were given a reprieve in the 80s and 90s but now we're right back on that path of destruction.
And incidentally, modern alternative media has done a lot to convince those who are seeking - just look at how many regular posters you see here who have come to see what NB is all about.
Tighten That Belt
July 21, 2008 - 08:25 ET by Copperhead RidgeIsn't it interesting that the government always asks us to pay more but never tightens its own belt.
I used to work on environmental impact studies and still pitch in on them every once and awhile. The federal government diverts so much money away from real transportation needs into nonsense projects like "rails-to-trails" efforts and other feel good-look good purposes.
I was once assigned a multi-million dollar project that involved building trails through a historical and nature preserve in Kentucky. When I looked at the budget I asked a government official from where all the funding was coming. "Oh," he said with a big smile on his face, "it's from the Federal Highway Administration." We were using gas tax money to build walking trails that -- to this day -- no one ever uses.
Basically, folks, we fund the photo-ops of congressmen and governors. Everybody puts their hands together as if they're praying, tilt their heads, look starry-eyed and think that these people are "progressive."
When the Clinton administration preened about rebuilding our infrastructure so much of that money went to building new roads. Guess what! We are still left with crumbing infrastructure and networks of new roads that need to be maintained.
Wait until the Obamunists are in power and he has his "well-funded" force of volunteers and community activists roaming the hinterlands. I can't wait until the sound trucks come down my road blaring "BRING OUT YOUR WEALTH! BRING OUT YOUR WEALTH!"
Saddam Obama Hussein for President!
Banks are gonna HURT
July 21, 2008 - 08:33 ET by MaytagThink the housing crunch is bad wait till people can't afford to drive their vehicles and start defaulting on them. Banks and credit unions will look like used car lots.
Velocity of Money
July 21, 2008 - 08:58 ET by BluegillDems don't understand increasing taxes further slows the Velocity of Money, the more times money changes hands the more revenue collected by Uncle Sam.
The #1 and only issue is gas prices, the life blood of our economy. Ties right back to the first point, conserving and slowing the speed limit will slow down the V of M.
First time in my life, 45 years old, that the govt. is
impairing my lifestyle. First time I have taken action too. Have contacted Gov. Crist as well as all my state Reps in Congress, signed petition to Drill etc... hope others will do the same. Pelosi and Reid are feeling the heat but are hoping we will just get used to higher prices and be quiet.
Please keep the pressure on to Drill.
Really???
July 21, 2008 - 09:03 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt"He merely suggests that current spending is below what Congress wants to spend"
Now was there ever a more obvious statement put in print then this???
What better way to bring
July 21, 2008 - 09:13 ET by msh1973What better way to bring Americans to their knees than to ruin them financially? Rush has stated that there is a limit to what Americans will pay for gas...we shall see what that is.
If the demoncrats succeed in
July 21, 2008 - 09:18 ET by cocodrieIf the demoncrats succeed in putting the highway trust funds in the general fund as they did with the social security trust fund, there will be no money for roads. The money will be used for welfare just like social security money has been.
All these monies will eventually...
July 21, 2008 - 09:55 ET by ontheright...be diverted to wellfare, just like it has always happened in the past. Why change, the "free-loaders" don't drive, so it won't affect them. And that way the liberal / Dumbocrats can keep th vast majority of their constituency happy. You know, keep the hogs at the trough...
http://newsbusters.o...
Don't think anyone can find a better example of "hogs at the trough".
Thanks for the above article, WTH!
"hogs to the trough" is the
July 21, 2008 - 14:22 ET by cocodrie"hogs to the trough" is the best so far. Quite literal in a way.
Dem Spin
July 21, 2008 - 15:25 ET by HermanoHere is how the Dems will spin this. "When we took over Congress in 2007 the tax rate on gasoline was a whopping 9%. Now, a mere two years later we have cut the tax rate in half to 4.5%. This tax increase which is greatly needed to improve and maintain our infrastructure will only raise the tax rate to 7%, so it is still significantly below the rate when the Republicans held power."
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
"Now, a mere two years
July 21, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Indiana Joe"Now, a mere two years later we have cut the tax rate in half to 4.5%."
God save us from any more Democrat "tax cuts!"
Fewer Miles
July 21, 2008 - 16:30 ET by NorthCoasterI have yet to figure out how fewer road miles driven equates to more repair/maintenance dollars needed.
Must be the old "What number do you want it to be game", which gets played anytime there is an agenda driven outcome discussed.
North Coaster
July 21, 2008 - 16:38 ET by candanceYou're not paying for those roads to be fixed - first and foremost you're paying the salaries of the people who sit around thinking of ways to borrow the funds for something else.
So dems want to raise the gasoline tax. No surprise here.
July 21, 2008 - 19:54 ET by R D HelmAfter all, these people are stupid enough to raise taxes an small business owners (who are creating 80% of the new jobs in this country) just as this country is teetering on the brink of sliding into a recession.
How stupid is that?
What is surprising, if not maddeningly infuriating, is the fact that the repubs have uttered nary a peep about it.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Quietly?
July 22, 2008 - 11:06 ET by TheDeuceLord give me strength. The media is so flippin' in the can for dems (and the ermpty suit in particular) it is sickening!
It can only be 'quiet' if the media keeps it that way! Someone needs to ask Bambi if he supports his fellow dems on the idea.