White House eyes 7-cent gas tax hike for infrastructure plan

[txradioguy]

The only place this extra money will go if this idiocy is passed is into pockets of the 15 THOUSAND transportation lobbyists in D.C.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=M

[txradioguy]

Before embarking on an infrastructure spending spree we should answer three questions. First, what is the actual state of our infrastructure? How do our roads, utilities, telecommunications, and airports compare to other affluent countries? Second, have we created an infrastructure deficit by underspending? Are we indeed spending too little? Third, if so, how much spending is needed to bring infrastructure up to “international standards.”

https://www.hoover.org/research/what-infrastructure-crisis

[SZonian]

Before embarking on an infrastructure spending spree we should answer three questions. First, what is the actual state of our infrastructure? How do our roads, utilities, telecommunications, and airports compare to other affluent countries? Second, have we created an infrastructure deficit by underspending? Are we indeed spending too little? Third, if so, how much spending is needed to bring infrastructure up to “international standards.”

https://www.hoover.org/research/what-infrastructure-crisis

I would add; "Are we spending the collected taxes on the projects they're supposed to be spent on vs. some green idiocy or diverting to other pet projects?"

Btw, we in CA are getting hit with a $0.12 cents per gallon tax increase on 1 Nov and then registration fee increases on 1 Jan purportedly to pay for roads...yeah right.

[thackney]

Roads and bridges in good shape where you live?  Well, not where I do.   And do you think we shouldn't prioritize hardening the electric grid?   

The electric grid is a separate topic, not part of highway dollars.

And I would be more supportive of highway taxes if they were spent on road and bridges, rather than the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown away on non-transportation pet projects.

Road Bill Reflects The Power Of Pork
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000223.html

...But hundreds of millions of dollars will be channeled to programs that critics say have nothing to do with improving congestion or efficiency: $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $6 million for graffiti elimination in New York; nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.; $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center, to name a few....

- - - - - - - -

Why aren’t we spending money for roads on roads?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/transportation/344324-why-arent-we-spending-money-for-roads-on-roads

...For example, in New York, a 2014 government report discovered only 22 percent of the state’s “Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund” was actually “dedicated” to highways and bridges. Instead of filling in potholes, the report said, 88 percent of New York’s gas-tax revenue was used for “state operations” and “debt service,” things intended to be funded through general revenue.

At the federal level, up to 25 percent of taxpayer funds collected from excise taxes on fuel purchases and stored in the federal Highway Trust Fund is used for purposes other than building highways and bridges....

[Jazzhead]

Then your city, county and state need to be taking care of that.  We don't need the Federal government imposing yet another tax on an already over taxed society just so they have more money to spend on useless crap that benefits no one.

Roads and bridges are useless crap that benefit no one?   Hardening the electric grid is useless, too? 

 

Stop being such a nihilist.  Sure, the federal government spends too much money, but maintaining our infrastructure so we can keep the economy humming is certainly within its authority.   

[txradioguy]

Roads and bridges are useless crap that benefit no one?   Hardening the electric grid is useless, too? 

 

Your words not mine.  Never said that they were useless.

But thanks for making sh*t up...again.

Stop being such a nihilist.  Sure, the federal government spends too much money, but maintaining our infrastructure so we can keep the economy humming is certainly within its authority.

How about you stop being such a blatant fool.

The fact you will continually refuse to see throughout the rest of the life of this discussion is that the Federal government is NOT spending money to maintain the infrastructure.  in most cases it's 25% or less of the alleged infrastructure funds that go towards their stated purpose...the rest goes towards thigns we don't need.

[ABX]

Speaking of all these infrastructure plans and spending, if you feel like getting angry, Google the pictures from the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami. Then Google how fast they rebuilt and how much it cost.  Then compare that to the past 8 years of infrastructure spending here.

 

[txradioguy]

1993:

President-elect Clinton’s plan for “’Putting People First” calls for spending an additional $20 billion a year on everything from rebuilding highways to constructing high-speed rail lines.  And the nation’s mayors have identified more than $26 billion in immediate public works projects to help lead cities and the nation out of recession.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/what-infrastructure-crisis


2009:

Obama's $700 Billion Infrastructure Plan

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a3823/4295028/


2013:

Obama calls on lawmakers to approve $21 billion infrastructure bill

http://thehill.com/video/administration/291007-obama-calls-on-congress-to-approve-21b-infrastructure-bill


2014:

President Obama will announce his plan to spend more than $300 billion over the next four years to fix the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges during a trip to Minnesota on Wednesday.

Obama will call on Congress to pay for the aggressive new transportation spending with $150 billion in new revenue generated through business tax reform. The proposal is likely to be included in the president’s budget proposal, slated to be released next week.
The White House said Obama’s plan will “address the funding crisis facing our surface transportation programs and to increase infrastructure investment.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/199275-obamas-300b-infrastructure-plan


2015:

Obama signs $305B highway bill

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/262171-obama-signs-305b-highway-bill


2017:

White House eyes 7-cent gas tax hike for infrastructure plan

[roamer_1]

Roads and bridges in good shape where you live?  Well, not where I do.   And do you think we shouldn't prioritize hardening the electric grid?   

T.E.A.

[INVAR]

It's not conservative to spend money you don't have.   If investment in crumbling infrastructure is a good thing - and it will no doubt provide jobs to lots of folks who've been hurting lately - then raising the gas tax by a modest amount strikes me as perfectly conservative.

Now, one can argue that additional infrastructure spending isn't needed, or that such money will likely be wasted because government inevitably messes with the free market.   But if we decide to rebuild roads and bridges, then raising the gas tax to pay for it is simply being responsible.

I do like the fact the tax as proposed is static rather than dynamic.   To me, that's conservative.  A 7-cent tax won't increase in the future as the price of gas rises.   A 7-percent tax, by contrast,  gives the government a revenue boost whenever it effects other policies that increase the price of fuel.     

Another STELLAR example of bullshit artistry depicting every single Liberal Democrat Big-Government talking points (taxes are 'investments') and declaring them "Conservative.

You are no Conservative bub.  You are a full-blown Socialist and you are fooling no one on this board, except yourself into thinking you are persuading anyone here.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

.

First they want to raise income taxes for many lower and middle incomes, now the gasoline tax.

Who is "they"?

[Jazzhead]

Another STELLAR example of bullshit artistry depicting every single Liberal Democrat Big-Government talking points (taxes are 'investments') and declaring them "Conservative.

You are no Conservative bub.  You are a full-blown Socialist and you are fooling no one on this board, except yourself into thinking you are persuading anyone here.

More abuse and insults from the phony man o' God.  Any substantive response?   Of course not.   

I am merely saying that IF we decide this is a good use of government spending, THEN we should be willing to pay for it with increased taxes.   Dumping our spending on the backs of our children is not conservative.   Fiscal responsibility is.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It's not conservative to spend money you don't have.   If investment in crumbling infrastructure is a good thing - and it will no doubt provide jobs to lots of folks who've been hurting lately - then raising the gas tax by a modest amount strikes me as perfectly conservative.   

Absolutely incorrect.

By that statement, you implied justification for all other government expenditures.

That is definitely not a conservative position to take.

A conservative would live within his means, prioritize what expenditures are made, and choose to cut out those considered lower priority to make ends meet.

[Jazzhead]

T.E.A.

With the colossal deficits we run, no, we're not taxed enough already.   Cut spending or raise taxes;  but the current course of mortgaging our childrens' futures cannot be sustained.   

[txradioguy]

With the colossal deficits we run, no, we're not taxed enough already.   

Why do you think we run those colossal deficits in the first place?

[Jazzhead]

A conservative would live within his means, prioritize what expenditures are made, and choose to cut out those considered lower priority to make ends meet.

Yes.  And when there's a call to raise spending to address needs that have gone unmet for years and years, then it is fiscally responsible to respond that we must pay for that increased spending with increased taxes.

I'm not saying this additional spending is conservative.   It sure seems like our infrastructure is rotting at the core, but maybe the roads are just fine where you are.   What I'm saying is that IF we decide to spend, THEN we need to be willing to pay for it.  That's responsible, and conservative.   

[Jazzhead]

Why do you think we run those colossal deficits in the first place?

We spend more than we take in in taxes.   

[txradioguy]

“Governments don't reduce deficits by raising taxes on the people; governments reduce deficits by controlling spending and stimulating new wealth.”


“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much”


"We don't need more politicians insisting we have deficits because you're not taxed enough. Those deficits ballooned from an economy that didn't grow enough and from 50 years of government spending too much."


"We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. "

[txradioguy]

We spend more than we take in in taxes.

And why is that?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes.  And when there's a call to raise spending to address needs that have gone unmet for years and years, then it is fiscally responsible to respond that we must pay for that increased spending with increased taxes.

I'm not saying this additional spending is conservative.   It sure seems like our infrastructure is rotting at the core, but maybe the roads are just fine where you are.   What I'm saying is that IF we decide to spend, THEN we need to be willing to pay for it.  That's responsible, and conservative.   

No it is NOT responsible to add taxes and spending until such time that a bottoms-up review is made and prioritized.

You crying about 'our infrastructure is rotting at the core' is most certainly not a conservative position until such time that review is completed.

[txradioguy]

No it is NOT responsible to add taxes and spending until such time that a bottoms-up review is made and prioritized.

You crying about 'our infrastructure is rotting at the core' is most certainly not a conservative position until such time that review is completed.

Saying we're not over taxed because we're running colossal deficits isn't a Conservative position either.   

[Polly Ticks]

Let's just educate everyone on how these extra taxes will benefit them and persuade them to pay more taxes rather than compelling them with a cruel and authoritarian law.

[Restored]

We spend more than we take in in taxes.

So spend less. That's what normal people do.

[Jazzhead]

And why is that?

Because we're not fiscally responsible, especially given the federal government's ability to print money rather than live within a budget.   

[INVAR]

More abuse and insults from the phony man o' God.  Any substantive response?   Of course not. 

That's HILARIOUS coming from you of all people.  Every single time substantive rebuttals to your insipid and inane liberal talking points is offered by anyone on this board - you ignore them wholesale in order to keep pushing your agenda.

THEN we should be willing to pay for it with increased taxes.   Dumping our spending on the backs of our children is not conservative.   Fiscal responsibility is.

It is AMAZING the ability you have to contradict yourself inside of one thought and still push the Democrat- position of more spending and tax increases.

But this is what obfuscators and deceitful people do when concealing their actual agenda while pretending to be that which they are not.