Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Heres your Dem congress at work
by philby
-1 Reply

You people put em in, so deal with it.

WASHINGTON - The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.

Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.

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.

How about posting the rest of the story
by mom

or at least a link?

With gas prices setting records daily, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain and former Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a 90-day suspension of the federal fuel tax to give drivers a little relief at the pump. The fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for road construction and repair and mass transit.

Clinton suggested making up for the loss by imposing a windfall profit tax on oil companies, an idea that Republicans rejected. McCain said the money could come out of the general Treasury fund, in effect adding to the federal deficit, and still is getting mileage from the idea.

"Some economists don't think much of my gas tax holiday," he said in a speech this month. "But the American people like it, and so do small business owners."

Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, opposed the idea from the beginning and the White House gave it a cold shoulder. Depriving the 52-year-old Highway Trust Fund of $9 billion at a time when it is heading into the red doomed the notion of a gas tax holiday in Congress.

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. James Oberstar, and the chairman of the highway subcommittee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, presented fellow lawmakers with a list of how many jobs and how much money each state would lose. It ranged from $30 million and 1,000 jobs in Vermont to $664 million and 23,000 jobs in California.

"Because the trust fund is already looking at a looming shortfall, it would have moved project cancellations into the construction season," DeFazio, D-Ore., said in an interview. He said it was "highly unlikely" that oil companies would have passed savings along to consumers.

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 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.

The Transportation Construction Coalition, a group of industry companies and unions, said that if Congress does not do something about the shortfall, states will lose about one-third of their road and bridge money in the budget year starting Oct. 1. That would put 485,000 more jobs at risk.

That message carried the day this summer. But now Congress has the bigger task of dealing with the short-term deficit crisis in the fund and coming up with a new spending plan, including revisiting the gas tax issue, when the current six-year, $286 billion highway-transit act expires in September 2009.

Senate Democrats in May tried to add $5 billion to an aviation overhaul bill to replenish the highway trust fund next year; Republicans objected. Democrats tried again in June, but this time for $8 billion; Republicans objected to that, too.

Congress should first reduce spending on pet projects, known as earmarks, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "I'm not going to let the Senate spend all this money when nobody is looking, especially when we refuse to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on earmarks."

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.

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.

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 include more toll roads and public-private partnerships, congestion pricing and user fees where drivers pay a tax based on how many miles they drive.

My link
by mom
Re: How about posting the rest of the story
by philby

Why?

Will that stop em from imposing the dime per gallon on gas?

If it does, I will certainly give the link.

Oh, what the hell.

<link>

Re: How about posting the rest of the story
by mom

I hope you're not on the next bridge that doesn't get inspected or repaired when it falls in the river...NOT!

Re: How about posting the rest of the story
by philby

Actually, we in New Hampshire take care of our own.We have a toll system that vertually pays for road AND bridge repairs.

Our roads and bridges are top notch.

P

Really?
by mom
Tuesday, June 20, 2000
States Must Step Up Bridge Repair Funding, Report Says
By John Nagy, Staff Writer
Incremental improvements on the nation's roadway bridges have left nearly three in ten in need of renovation or repair and states may need to pick up more of the tab, according to a new independent analysis of Federal Highway Administration data.

(TRIP), a non-profit highway research group based in Washington, D.C., which conducted the analysis of data collected through December 1999.

"None of the bridges on the [FHWA] list are in imminent danger of collapsing. We're not talking about dangerous bridges and loss of life. We're talking about ... deficient bridges that need investment by the states and federal government in order to maintain and improve them," Haaland said.

State and federal government bridge expenditures stand at about $6.1 billion annually. TRIP's conclusions, released June 7, support recent indications from the U.S. Department of Transportation that an additional $4.5 billion would be needed each year for the next 20 years to substantially reduce the number of flawed structures.

"Those states with high percentages of deficient bridges will need additional funding at the state level to go along with federal increases if they are to adequately address their needed bridge repairs or improvements," TRIP executive director William M. Wilkins said in a press release.

State highway officials seem prepared to concede the point, but only partially. "TRIP has performed a valuable service in terms of focusing attention on this area," said spokeswoman Sunny Schust of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

But Schust is quick to point to jurisdictional differences found in older USDOT data sets that are not delineated in the TRIP report. While one in three locally maintained bridges needs work, the percentage of outdated interstate bridges is significantly lower, about 4.1 percent, she said.

"States are focusing attention on those bridges that are most active and most heavily utilized by the public, but certainly there is a backlog of bridges that need to be addressed," Schust said.

At least half of the bridges in Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are "deficient" either structurally unsound or out-of-sync with current road construction standards according to the report.

More than a third of the bridges in fourteen more states fall into the same category. Those states are Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont and West Virginia.

Among states with the fewest deficient bridges were Arizona (10 percent) Delaware, Minnesota and Nevada (each at 16 percent).

Haaland said that the preponderance of eastern states at the bottom of the list reflected the relative age of their highway and bridge systems and the density of their population and traffic.

USDOT recently released the 1999 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and Transit: Conditions and Performance report, a compilation of 1998 transportation data. TRIP's analysis used a special 1999 data set released by USDOT that the federal agency will develop this year.

State-by-state lists of the number and percentage of deficient structures may be found adjacent to the report on TRIP's web site.

An FHWA spokesman declined to comment on the TRIP report.
They don't even inspect the bridges on time
by mom
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
by CrimeANitly

At least half of the bridges in Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are "deficient" either structurally unsound or out-of-sync with current road construction standards according to the report.

More than a third of the bridges in fourteen more states fall into the same category. Those states are Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont and West Virginia.

OOOOOOOOThis might imply that your state is a bit backward, as are some of its residents (you).


Re: Greenspan proposed a gas tax.
by CrimeANitly

All the dems need to do is convince the repubs that it is tied to national security and they'll go along with it - - or be accused of being soft on security.

..."National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs."

<link>

mom-
by shazbot
Again you fight drivel with fact? I applaud your efforts and your means but when it comes to some people well it is like the Jetro Tull line-And your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick! Pouring knowledge into a brick is quite impossible.
Re: Heres your Dem congress at work
by TomFitz

Glad to see that.

The Federal gas tax has been the same for fourteen years, while construction costs have roughly doubled (expecially in the Bush years, as a weak dollar, raw material demand from China, and the quadrupuling of the price of oil have all driven up costs).


Raising the Federal gas tax has been a good idea for about eight years now.

In fact, it ought to be indexed to inflation.

The gas tax holiday was alway nothing more than an election year pander from the GOP. They tried it in 2000 when gas briefly went from $1.00 per gallon, to $!.50.

Glad to see Congress practicing good public policy for a change.

If the Federal gas tax doubled tomorrow, you'd barely notice it.

At least the money would be going into the pockets of Americans, instead of into the pockets of Arab princes and Houston oil magnates.

Re: Greenspan proposed a gas tax.
by TomFitz

That's how Eisenhower sold the Interstate system in the first place!

View as RSS news feed in XML