The Washington Post is directing a December 8 plea to the incoming Obama administration. The Post wants to raise the federal gas tax so high that it will stop people from driving. The Post thinks this will serve our national security purposes and add more money to rebuild our nation's roads. Apparently, the Washington Post has the foolishly mistaken notion that federal gas tax receipts actually go where our Congress initially claimed it was going to go; our nation's roads. In fact, nearly half of the federal gas tax receipts goes to pork instead of roads and infrastructure.
But, despite the waste by government, here is the Washington Post trying to soak America's drivers even more by suggesting Congress raise the federal gas tax by 46 cents a gallon. The Post thinks that recently falling gas prices offers a "golden opportunity" for the government to emulate Europe and pile taxes high on each gallon purchased. The Post is obviously unaware that the US did not become the greatest nation on earth by emulating Europe!
So, what does the Post think will be accomplished by raising the gas tax? They think we will suddenly be safer, as if paying confiscatory taxes like Europe will suddenly make terrorism go away. Not only that, but high taxes will, in the Post's opinion, "improve highway safety," too.
This step would stimulate the market for new fuel-efficient cars; defund mischief-making petro-states; and cut carbon emissions. Not only that, it would reduce traffic, curb urban sprawl and, by giving drivers an incentive to drive more slowly, improve highway safety.
All dubious claims, for certain.
Sadly, the Post seems willfully ignorant of what federal gas taxes actually end up paying for. The Post seems to imagine that Congress can be trusted to take this windfall gas tax and actually spend it on our nation's roads and bridges. The Post is completely innocent of any thought that this money will just fuel more profligate Congressional spending instead of fueling a positive change in our infrastructure and driving habits.
It's hard to believe that a national newspaper of the prominence of the Washington Post could be so filled with naiveté. The entirety of federal gas tax does not go to the upkeep and building of the nation's highways. In fact, it goes to things that have nothing at all to do with the safety and repair of our highways. Often times as much as 42% of these taxes end up going to pork barrel spending and earmarks. In 2005, for instance, well over one million dollars of gas taxes went to several museums around the country to pay for building projects. And that is just some of the $12 billion in pork and wasteful projects funded by federal transportation spending during that year... not to mention every year before and after.
Then the Washington Post makes the most idiotic suggestion I've yet seen. The Post thinks we should soak the driver with a gas tax all year, yet then turn around and rebate it with income tax refunds on April 15th.
But surely voters can understand that, even if Congress were to triple the tax to 55.2 cents, gas would still be cheaper, in real terms, than it was in 2005. The increase could be rebated through the income tax system.
So, what exactly would be the purpose of soaking every driver in America every day, to steal his money, but then turn around and give the taxes back at the end of the tax season? How does that even make any logical sense? Would the money spent on infrastructure magically reappear in time to refund it to the tax payer? How does spent money just magically reappear?
The Post sums up their little fantasy world with an awful lot of bald faced assumptions without any real proof to back them up.
Whenever anyone mentions the gas tax, politicians are quick to warn their constituents about the costs; rarely do they mention the benefits. A higher gas tax would buy valuable public goods: national security; a cleaner environment; and safer, less congested streets. No matter what, Americans will have to pay for all of that. Why not do it the simple, straightforward way?
Sorry, Washington Post. But all a higher federal gas tax will do is give the piggies at the trough in Washington D.C. more money than ever to waste on pet projects and pork barrel spending. Sure higher taxes will stop people from driving. It will also raise the costs of transportation, food, entertainment and everything else that is connected with the trucking and shipping industry -- which is just about everything. Higher taxes will not build roads, make highways safer, or eliminate the threat of terrorism from petro-dollar infused outlaw Muslim states.
The problem with Congress isn't that they don't get enough taxes. It's that they waste most of what they already get. But you go on with your little fantasy world, there, Washington Post. Forget about the reality that stares us all right in then face.
The belief in big government is pathological with these people.
(Image credit: cfnews13.com)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hey
December 9, 2008 - 06:20 ET by 10ksnookerI want to ban lying newspapers -- What would make the America a better place?
How can you be so cynical
December 9, 2008 - 07:31 ET by motherbeltHow can you be so cynical with our national security at stake!!
It's patriotic to pay through the nose for gas, dontcha know???
Joe says so!!
"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
Added:
The Post thinks that recently falling gas prices offers a "golden
opportunity" for the government to emulate Europe and pile taxes high
on each gallon purchased
That's their thinking: high prices because of supply and demand.....bad. The same high prices because of added taxes....good.
They only problem they have with $4 or even $5/gallon gas is if they're not getting that money.
well, no wonder...
December 9, 2008 - 06:27 ET by jackie3Newspapers and media are on the verge of BK. Apparently they don't know much about how economics work.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Warner, surely you're not surprised?
December 9, 2008 - 06:27 ET by Indiana JoeWhat leftist ever met a problem that couldn't be solved by throwing ever-more money at it?
(Yes, I'm aware it's "Warner Todd," and not "Warner Shirley.")
;^)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
... don't
December 9, 2008 - 06:34 ET by Warner Todd HustonAnd don't call me shriley.
I know you don't feel you can tell me, but you can. I'm a doctor.
Good luck
December 9, 2008 - 06:50 ET by Indiana JoeWe're all counting on you.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
WaPo Can't See Hand In Front Of Face
December 9, 2008 - 06:44 ET by HockeyKidThey even have the points that explain why the plan won't work right in the article.
- Raise the tax to reduce the amount of driving for security reasons.
- As a result, get more money to fund road improvements
Hello? McFly? If gas consumption goes down, where do they think the extra money will come from? If the first objective (reduced driving) is accomplished, the second won't be, by definition of the plan.
Stupid WaPo.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Old liberal logic
December 9, 2008 - 06:53 ET by Indiana JoeIn much the same way, Clinton was going to fund health-care for children through increased tobacco taxes. Of course, when tobacco use was completely stamped out in this country, the program the taxes funded would just go away.
Now, about that bridge you had your eye on....
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Well, then, they'll just
December 9, 2008 - 07:22 ET by motherbeltWell, then, they'll just raise the tax. ;-)
They have become parodies of themselves!
And Indiana, re the Child insurance thing: that was their plan all along....claim to use the tobacco tax, then when that's no longer enough, use other taxes, because of course, the program can't be jettisoned!
They expect us to believe that they operate on an "envelope" system: that the money in "this" envelope goes for this, the money in "that" envelope goes there.....
What a joke. If that were true, our roads wouldn't be in the condition they are now because they would have been using the "gas tax" for that which it was intended.
These Journalists dont get out much
December 9, 2008 - 06:51 ET by True_SoldierI dont know about the rest of you, but I did not see much of any congestion relief when the price of gas was over $4 a gallon this summer on the morning or evening commute. People still drove to and from work when congestion tends to be the worst. Sure they did not make the extra trip to the stores as they did not want to use their gas for the trip and quite frankly did not have the extra money to buy anything anyway (might be just one more reason our economic numbers were down in the 3rd quarter).
This sounds to me like a combination of enviornmentalism combined with the Sociailistic tax the public to death mentality I have come to expect from journalism today.
To scientists, observed,
December 9, 2008 - 06:55 ET by Indiana JoeTo scientists, observed, repeatable results are the basis for theories.
To liberal economic thinkers, not so much.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
Sure they did not make the
December 9, 2008 - 07:25 ET by motherbeltSure they did not make the extra trip to the stores as they did not
want to use their gas for the trip and quite frankly did not have the
extra money to buy anything anyway (might be just one more reason our
economic numbers were down in the 3rd quarter).
You make a good point. And now that gas is down, people might actually have a little money for Christmas gifts, so the numbers will improve. I always say that when Christmas rolls around, people will spend anyway.
But it will all be attributed to "The One."
mischief-making petro-state?
December 9, 2008 - 06:52 ET by blueridgerWhat is a mischief-making petro-state?
I think
December 9, 2008 - 07:00 ET by Warner Todd HustonI think I had my bug guy spray for those last week.
You know...
December 9, 2008 - 07:04 ET by Indiana JoeThose little scamps that train people to hijack airplanes, blow up children, bomb embassies, that sort of thing. Aren't they just the cutest little dickens?
Kind of like the Katzenjammer Kids, only... um,... not German... can't really say what they are... "tolerance," you know... can't "generalize"....
Just little "mischief-makers."
<edit: Oh, wait, isn't that the thing men over 40 should have checked once a year? Your "petro-state" gland?>
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
A few observations
December 9, 2008 - 07:29 ET by moderncommentaries83First - why is it Democrats are the ones who always come up with plans that will financially hurt the people they say they represent - the poor and middle class?
Second - if the gas tax goes so high that people stop driving, why do we need to rebuild our roads?
Third - I thought 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration and that terrorism was a figment of Bush's imagination. I also thought the messiah - Barack Obama - was going to eliminate all terrorism from the world by meeting (without preconditions) all the despot leaders and Islamic radicals.
In other words, the gas tax is pointless. Just another way for the left to control our lives. Do they not realize if gas taxes go up, the economy will grind to a halt? The slim silver lining in all the bad economic news is that gas prices are lower. This includes the cost of natural gas used to heat people's homes?
Or does WaPo want to explain to me - whose area is currently on the receiving end of anywhere between 4-12 inches of snow, and where it was 3º over the weekend - why not being able to heat my home is a "good thing".
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
That's right MC83
December 9, 2008 - 08:04 ET by SeashellFirst - why is it Democrats are the ones who always come up with plans that will financially hurt the people they say they represent - the poor and middle class?
That is exactly right.
I think that if Obama lets this gas tax hike go through there will be a mass revolt. It was bad enough when we had no control of the price of gas, but if our government causes the gas prices to go up to $4 or $5 per gallon, it will not be acceptable to the very people that put Obama in office.
I am a loser so what do I know.
December 9, 2008 - 07:39 ET by JWFI voted for McCain and I thought he would win. I think I have lost touch with what the rest of the country cares about.
I drive 78 miles round trip to go to work from small town America to middle town America. High gas prices will kill off what is left of small town America.
I am sick to death of Eurosocialist hearting Bicoastalsocialists thinking they know what is best for me.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
It occurs to me
December 9, 2008 - 08:02 ET by Indiana JoeALL these ideas about taxes (beyond, of course, paying for what's mandated by the Constitution) are about control. Controlling behavior, controlling travel, controlling economics. None of it is meant to "solve" the stated "problem." WaPo could give a rat's rear about "infrastructure."
That's why these "solutions" rarely make sense. That's why they usually exacerbate the problem they're supposed to address. More problems = more "solutions" = more behavior modification = more control.
The Constitution protects gun ownership? Fine, tax ammo out of sight. Free travel? Ditto gas. "Urban sprawl" a problem? Well, the gas-tax will "control" that, too. We need to "re-vitalize" our cities? "Fair-housing" laws, subsidized loans, tax-abatements.
And all of them designed to affect and control behavior. Our behavior. The "little people."
Call it "econo-social engineering." The left's latest weapon.
And it's working.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
you got it joe
December 9, 2008 - 09:32 ET by candanceThe plan is to force you to move into the city, walk to work every day, abort any pregnancy past your second, become vegetarian, and live on whatever budget they deem necessary.
What do you mean that's not fair? Tryin' to save the planet here!
I'm a typical white person.
I live outside the city take
January 13, 2009 - 16:56 ET byI live outside the city take the train if i need to go there and borrow a car if i need one or walk. No big deal, i am shocked though to see gas prices fall below $2 it seems as if it were 10 years ago when i last saw prices like that, as for taxes we could all use some tax relief and save a bit more.
Ahem, so they want people
December 9, 2008 - 10:45 ET by dscottAhem, so they want people to drive less? So why are the very same people belly aching about the big 3 automakers and demanding a bailout to keep the UAW people employed??? What's the point of loaning billions to the automakers if you don't want people to drive? Hello, hello, is anyone of sufficient intelligence home there at the WaPo to answer the basic question????
So on one hand we have Democrats and libs #1 demanding to raise the gasoline taxes to make people drive less, then we have Democrats and libs #2 demanding to bail out the automakers because they aren't selling vehicles because people are driving less and keeping their older vehicles because they can't afford a new one. And didn't we previously have Dems and libs whining #3 about a drop in gasoline tax revenue to maintain the roads and bridges due to increasing price of gasoline, hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles so they want to put GPS units to total the mileage as an alternative to the gasoline tax?
You libs may think we don't pay attention to all your contradictory lines of argument, but we do, that's why we think you libs are morons. Chose one and stick with it, otherwise you will not be viewed as serious.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
defund mischief-making
December 9, 2008 - 11:05 ET by dscottdefund mischief-making petro-states
Mission accomplished. We are doing that now with oil being less than $60/barrel. Venezuela and Iran are in a world of economic pain right now. Keep this up for a few years and the sponsors of terrorism will loose their political support as they are forced to choose between their agenda of Islamic Imperialism versus domestic economic needs. Therefore no gasoline tax is needed to fight terrorism.
IF they were actually serious about this then they would remove all objections to nuclear power and restart the breeder reactor program to recycle the spent fuel rods which would usher in the electric car. Can't have the electric car without nuclear power since there is no other cost effective means to produce electricity on such a scale. Any attempt to increase electric power consumption by adding vehicles will cause the price of electricity to skyrocket thus harming the poor. There is isn't sufficient crop land to grow ethanol or bio-oil to subsitute for gasoline or diesel without starving the poor via high food prices. Finally, cities are energy hogs, per capita more energy is used in cities than suburbs. So much for mass transit which uses more energy than individual vehicles in any event due to load factor.
BTW - if they were really serious about energy consumption then they should be the first to limit population growth (energy consumption is proportional to population growth) by keeping out illegal immigrants and deporting those here. 13 million consumers use a lot of energy.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Mass Transit replacing cars is a Liberal Socialist Fantasy
December 9, 2008 - 11:44 ET by PopularTechMass transit does not go where you want to go when you want to go there and thus irrelevant outside of major cities.
5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture (Reason Magazine)
Dispelling Transit Myths (Cato Institute)
I cannot wait for the Democrats to raise the gasoline tax so the Republicans can take back control of congress. The socialist green regulations they want to pass are going to have a massive backlash with the working public.
Censored Global Warming Videos