Dems Want To Raise Gas Tax

[red states rule]

Here we go again folks, another lib wanting to raise your taxes


Oberstar wants 5-cents-a-gallon gas tax hike for nation’s bridges
AP Associated Press
Published Thursday, August 09, 2007


WASHINGTON — House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar on Wednesday proposed a temporary gas tax increase of 5 cents a gallon, that would pay for a new trust fund to repair, replace and rehabilitate structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System.

Oberstar, D-Minn., made the proposal as part of a plan aimed at fixing such bridges and preventing a repeat of last week’s bridge collapse in Minneapolis, which killed at least five people and injured about 100.

But it got an immediate cold shoulder from the committee’s top Republican

The trust fund would be modeled on the federal Highway Trust Fund, which pays for building and repairing roads and bridges through the gasoline tax. Money in the new trust fund could not be used for any other purpose than bridges.

At a news conference announcing the plan just upstream from the bridge collapse site, Oberstar said he was confident he could get support from the Bush administration.

“Governor (Tim) Pawlenty has had a conversion, and I expect the president will as well,” Oberstar said. “At least we’ll give him that opportunity.”

Last week, the Minnesota governor said he is willing to reverse his long-standing opposition to a state gas tax increase.

“If you’re not prepared to invest another five cents in bridge reconstruction and road reconstruction,” Oberstar said, “then God help you.”

Oberstar’s plan is to increase the gas tax, which is currently 18.3 cents a gallon, for three years, which he said would bring in about $25 billion in additional revenue.

The U.S. Department of Transportation did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages seeking comment on the proposal.

The Transportation Committee’s top Republican, Rep. John Mica of Florida, panned Oberstar’s plan, calling it a “Band-Aid approach to a critical national transportation infrastructure problem.”

“A knee-jerk reaction to the critical problem facing our transportation and infrastructure systems will only result in a continued failure to address the deteriorating conditions of our highways, ports, airports, and rail systems,” Mica said in a statement. “It’s like owning an 80-year old house that has serious problems with the plumbing, the heating, the foundation, and a leaking roof, and saying you’re going to fix the driveway.”

He called instead for the development of a national strategic transportation plan.

for the complete the article

https://secure.forumcomm.com/willmar/articles/index.cfm?page=purchase&id=23096&CFID=49117649&CFTOKEN=48467036&jsessionid=8830f3f3a14c10a682b5

[Drocket]

Gotta say, I'll happily pay a bit more for gas if it helps me avoid dying in a bridge collapse...

[red states rule]

MN had a huge surplus yet the bridge fell

Funny how some people piss their pants over oil companies making 10 cents profit off a gallon of gas - yet governemnt makes 50 to 60 cents in taxes (which is fix roads and bridges)

What is the government doing with all the money they have right now?

[Drocket]

If you think the oil companies are making 10 cents profit per gallon, I have a (collapsed) bridge to sell you. As for what the government is doing with the money they have now, they're making sure bridges don't collapse on a daily basis, and that roads are drivable. Did you perhaps think that maintaining a bajillion miles of roads would be cheap?

[red states rule]

They are. That is their profit off a gallon of gas

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070323.html

So since government makes 5 times that amount - the roads should be paved in 24K gold

[Drocket]

That ignores the massive and almost continuous trades that oil companies engage in - they sell oil back and forth many, many times before it hits the pump. Simple example: you want to sell $1 in gas for $2, but you don't want to make 100% profit on it, because that creates a bad public perception. Here's what you do:

Oil ompany A sells their $1 gas to oil company B for $1.10. That's a 10% profit.
Oil company B sells the gas back to oil company A for $1.20. About a 9% profit.
Oil company A sells the gas back to oil company B for $1.30. A slightly smaller profit still.
Continue until the gas reaches desired price.

In the end, you've turned $1 gas into $2 gas, you've still made the same profit you'd have made by simply selling it for $2, but because you've massively raised the 'expenses' because of all the trading, it LOOKS like a small profit, even though it's not. It's money laundering, plain and simple.

[bobbylien]

So you're answer to a major infrastructure problem..
Borrow more money from China, I don't want to pay 5cents more a gallon. You just can't keep spending money with a budget deficit in the trillions. Whatever happened to real conservatism?
This is an example of responsible government. They see a problem and they have a plan to fix it and pay for it without adding to our deficit.

[red states rule]

We have plenty of money now to maintain raods and bridges. The Dem Congress would rather blow it on pork

[AnnEsthesia]

No dear, all of government has pork. NOT just dems. Republicans get their fair share too.

[red states rule]

But Dems are now outdoing the last Republican congress

[AnnEsthesia]

Bullshit. Pork has been part of the process since time began. But keep those blinders on. They seem to serve you well.

[bobbylien]

You want to change the way congress works? Fine, take it to another thread. You are just taking this one off topic.

[red states rule]

Oh, you are making this way to easy
32,684
That's the number of "funding requests" -- i.e., earmarks -- from House lawmakers this year.


BEFORE LAST week's recess, Republicans and Democrats went at each other over earmarks. The flash point was a plan by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) not to put earmarks in individual spending bills this year when they were considered on the House floor. Under the Obey plan, now abandoned, the earmarks would have been added only after the measure was in conference. This was a problem, as Republicans legitimately pointed out, because conference reports aren't subject to amendment, just an up-or-down vote. Republicans accused Democrats of backtracking on their promise to usher in a new era of transparency and accountability. The outrage was a bit hard to take from a crowd that presided over an explosion of earmarks and excelled in last-minute provisions airdropped into conference reports. But the Democrats were right to back down: Two spending bills passed without earmarks, but the remaining ones will have the specific projects included.

This is a better result, but the most shocking aspect of the brouhaha was not Mr. Obey's plan. Rather, it was the number of funding requests deluging the committee: 32,684, or an average of 75 requests per member. Some of these center on broader concerns -- funding for global AIDS programs, say -- but most involve matters less lofty. Some spending bills, such as military construction, or energy and water, lend themselves to earmarking because they involve individual projects. Why should only the executive branch get to determine which should be pursued? But in recent years the practice has mushroomed. This year, members have tried to place earmarks where none had occurred -- for example, at the National Institutes of Health. Something needs to be done to get this under control. As Mr. Obey put it, "Members should be more than ATM machines for their district. They should be policy setters for the country."

for the complete article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070700982.html

[AnnEsthesia]

Blah blah... and this has to do with the gas tax, how? I know you need to get your daily allotment of liberal bashing in and all...

[red states rule]

So if Dems would do what the promised, reduce the pork, why would they have to increase the gas tax?

My, you do have a problem with facts, don't you?

[bobbylien]

Spin aside, 5cents more per gallon and we fix our nations bridges. Simple enough.
I can think of another way we could fix these bridges a thousand times over but I won't get into it.

[AnnEsthesia]

When all else fails, personally attack.

[red states rule]

No, cutting back on the pork and using that money would provide any needed money that is needed

More money is always the answer to tax happy politicans - and some are willing to sit back and let the government have it

[Drocket]

Things get a lot more interesting when one looks at the source of these earmarks. While I readily admit that the Democrats have a number of them, the real source are the Republicans. They're deliberately attempting to undermine the Democratic congress, and are doing so by going nuts with INSANE spending bills. The number of earmarks has more than doubled since last year - and that increase is entirely, 100% Republican created.

None of this has anything to do with roads, though, as that's a separate budget.

[red states rule]

Wrong again. Dems are way ahead in the pork contest

http://porkbusters.org/scorecard.php

[Drocket]

Wrong again. Dems are way ahead in the pork contest

http://porkbusters.org/scorecard.php


Yes, a measure of 12 key votes that would help stop pork barrel spending. For example... Um... Gee, it doesn't actually tell us what any of those '12 key votes' were, does it? I'm sure this site is QUITE reputable and independent, what with endorsements like the Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth.

Jesus, just send us a link to the GOP website for how bad Democrats are, why don't you?

[AnnEsthesia]

lol Drocket

[Drocket]

Oh, by the way, you want to see a LEGITIMATE attempt to stop earmarks?

BEFORE LAST week's recess, Republicans and Democrats went at each other over earmarks. The flash point was a plan by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) not to put earmarks in individual spending bills this year when they were considered on the House floor. Under the Obey plan, now abandoned, the earmarks would have been added only after the measure was in conference.

Oh wait, you posted that already in the thread, as an attempt to smear Democrats.

[Red Dragon]

Funny how he attacks democrats for wanting to raise taxes on Gas but he applauds a war with Iran even though it would raise taxes even more then a new gas tax. Oh well I guess it just shows that both parties are out for their own power. Now as for my opinion on this tax, I'll just say that we would all be better off if the road system was privatized instead of it being a government monopoly like public education, or the post office, or one of the other dozens of unneeded government monopolies and social programs.

[red states rule]

Wrong again. Dems are way ahead in the pork contest

http://porkbusters.org/scorecard.php


Yes, a measure of 12 key votes that would help stop pork barrel spending. For example... Um... Gee, it doesn't actually tell us what any of those '12 key votes' were, does it? I'm sure this site is QUITE reputable and independent, what with endorsements like the Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth.

Jesus, just send us a link to the GOP website for how bad Democrats are, why don't you?


Truth hurts, eh? Dems have an addiction to spending your tax money - and they never stop wanting to steal more of your money with higher taxes

And I thought they promised to cut back on the pork as a campaign promise

[AnnEsthesia]

I would rather they spend my tax money than running up a debt they will never be able to pay and figuring the future generations can figure out how to deal with it. It is called being a responsible human being, otherwise known as being an adult.

[red states rule]

In case you missed it, revenues are at record levels AND the annual federal budget deficit has been cut by more the 50% in the last 4 years

With the annual Federal budget at nealry $3 trillion - what the hell is NOT being funded properly?

[Mayberry]

The government already gets more than enough to maintain roads and bridges. Gas tax, vehicle registration fees, titles, all of this is SUPPOSED to go to highways and bridges. The problem is that it keeps getting "reallocated" to pork, subsidies, welfare, or whatever else the politicians want to throw money at. Hold them accountable instead of letting them dig ever deeper into our pockets. This is always a politician's solution... "raise taxes, that'll fix it". Right. The problem is, that nobody raises my salary every time somebody wants to raise a tax.

[red states rule]

Libs whine how the government cannot "afford" any tax cuts - but the libs NEVER ask us if we can afford a tax increase

[BoogyMan]

If you think the oil companies are making 10 cents profit per gallon, I have a (collapsed) bridge to sell you. As for what the government is doing with the money they have now, they're making sure bridges don't collapse on a daily basis, and that roads are drivable. Did you perhaps think that maintaining a bajillion miles of roads would be cheap?


Oil companies are a for-profit business Drocket.

The federal government doesn't tell the states how to spend their federal transportation monies. Why not evaluate what is being done with those funds instead of putting the government hand in my pocket once again?

[red states rule]

and for what have to do to find the oil, drill for it, pump it out of the grounf, ship it, refine it, and then deliver it to gas stations - all for ten cents profit per gallon - it is alot of work for little profit per gallon

What does government do for their 50 to 60 cent profit they make?

And what the hell are they doing with it?