I was under the impression that we already had a gas tax to pay for highways, roads, and bridges and stuff. But apparently some folks (Democrats) don't think it's high enough. From the Star-Tribune:
President Bush said Thursday that he would be opposed to any steps by Congress to increasing the gasoline tax to raise revenues for national bridge repairs in the wake of Minneapolis' bridge collapse.
"Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities," Bush said, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns above such national concerns as bridge conditions.
Right on! It's been rare enough to hear something from President Bush that makes me say that, but this is one of those times. Currently the system is that congress takes money from the highway trust friend and allocates it according to their priorities set in Washington, D.C. Then any money left over can be allocated by the state governments. That's exactly backwards.
The state departments of transportation can allocate money themselves, thank you very much. And they might be more interested in making sure an existing bridge is safe rather than building new bridges to nowhere.
And then there's the situation where Ohio's gas money goes to Montana because Montana has a congress critters with better committee assignments. Bad idea all around. Bush calls Congress on it, but does he have the guts to follow through on it? History says no.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Yes, we have a gas tax. But one of the unintended consequences of getting better gas mileage from our cars is that the impact of the federal tax (18.4 cents per gallon) is dwindling while costs of transportation construction go up.
I do like the idea of the state DOT getting first shot at the funds and setting priorities. But I'm biased on that, I work at a state DOT.
Steve Bonomo at 5:23PM on Aug 11th 2007
2. It was a republican senator who proposed it, just so you know.
For political commentary & blogs, visit:
http://www.politidose.com/
Patrick at 5:24PM on Aug 11th 2007
3. Why Rep's had the House, Congress and the White House all they did was pork for profit. The Rep's put a lot of money in their friends pockets. Now a bridge fall down and kills a few people the American congress founds out that they did needed to fix the bridges and overpass's before other people die.
Rep's have more graft than any party I seen in a long time. Kick out very Rep in office and they will state taking care of the American people.
Dancerpl2 at 7:46PM on Aug 11th 2007
4. I sure would like to see a few politicians in Washington discover some areas of our budget that are bloated and candidates for reduction. There must be a hundred or two pork items that could be trimmed, reduced or eliminated. We have the fat in the budget already but no one has the courage to speak of it.
phoenix arizona auto insurance, car, home owner, life insurance quote at 8:42PM on Aug 12th 2007
5. i think the best would be to scrap all incumbents (both parties) and get new ones..that way no one will be the head of a committee for centuries and allocate all the pork in thier favor...
robert longnecker at 1:15PM on Aug 13th 2007