You're driving less, America!

[RangerM]

Here come the stories:

 

From Washington

 

Gasoline tax revenue is falling so fast that the federal government may not be able to meet its commitments to states for road projects already under way, the secretary of transportation said Monday.

 

The secretary, Mary E. Peters, said the short-term solution would be for the Highway Trust Fund’s highway account to borrow money from the fund’s mass transit account, a step that would balance the accounts as highway travel declines and use of mass transit increases. Both trends are being driven by the high price of gasoline and diesel fuel.

 

 

From Utah

 

.....the road fund for fiscal 2009 is heading for a $10 million to $20 million shortfall because of a decline in gas-tax receipts, spokesman Nile Easton said. In coming weeks the department's five regions will prioritize maintenance projects and decide what can be pushed back to next year.

 

 

 

From Boston

 

As drivers trim car trips and flock to public transportation, the state is beginning to take in less money from the gas tax, raising concern it will have fewer dollars to repair crumbling roads and bridges.

 

The state collected 2.4 percent less in gas taxes in June than it did the year before. Collections also declined three of the four previous months compared with 2007. In addition, the financially troubled Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is collecting less toll money and is no longer expecting to reap as much from the toll hike that went into effect in January as it had once projected.

 

 

Don't you feel like you're not paying your "fair share"? Get out there and pay some taxes!

 

Maybe you could take up smoking again? How about getting another telephone line? Maybe you should drink (alcoholic beverages) more? Buy a gun? How about vaccinating your kids? Hit the casino?

 

Just don't forget, it's for your own good.

Edited July 29, 2008 by RangerM

[igor]

rofl ..

I think fuel efficient cars .. like Prius should pay extra taxes .. after all you can drive some 600 mile on the same amount of fuel as (say) Mustang uses in 200 miles .. that is THREE TIMES the damage to the roads !!!

 

Someone ought to look into this

 

and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Leave the Public transport fund intact - there is already miniscule amount of money in it - at least compared to what is needed - let Public trasport fluorish now thyat it is needed, and desirable .... we finally hav an opportunity to catch up to the rest of the developed world and remedy 60 years of neglect ... please do not eff this up

 

Igor

Edited July 29, 2008 by igor

[fmccap]

I think fuel efficient cars .. like Prius should pay extra taxes .. after all you can drive some 600 mile on the same amount of fuel as (say) Mustang uses in 200 miles .. that is THREE TIMES the damage to the roads !!!

 

Someone ought to look into this

I think that is a very good point.

[theoldwizard]

The State of Michigan pay for all road maintenance (except local) from the "road tax" levied on gasoline and diesel. This tax has been the same for about 10 years now ! While the state collects the taxes, it is re-distributed to the county Road Commission (not the county; these are 2 totally different entities) based on the number of miles of roads in the county (not how much tax was collected or how miles cars and truck drove in the county)

 

Now imagine if you had not had a raise in 10 years ! Every year there are cuts. Less workers, less materials, less equipment. Road Commissions can expect big cut back in the second half of 2008 just as winter is approaching and they need to purchase road salt. Remember last year when they actually ran out of road salt ?

 

And just how does the state collect "road tax" on electric and plug in hybrids ?

[NickF1011]

And just how does the state collect "road tax" on electric and plug in hybrids ?

 

I'm sure it would just make the tax system even more complicated, but they could make you claim your milage on your income taxes and pay the road tax via that method instead of at the pump.

[RangerM]

The State of Michigan pay for all road maintenance (except local) from the "road tax" levied on gasoline and diesel. This tax has been the same for about 10 years now ! While the state collects the taxes, it is re-distributed to the county Road Commission (not the county; these are 2 totally different entities) based on the number of miles of roads in the county (not how much tax was collected or how miles cars and truck drove in the county)

 

Now imagine if you had not had a raise in 10 years ! Every year there are cuts. Less workers, less materials, less equipment. Road Commissions can expect big cut back in the second half of 2008 just as winter is approaching and they need to purchase road salt. Remember last year when they actually ran out of road salt ?

 

And just how does the state collect "road tax" on electric and plug in hybrids ?

 

How about just making the "road tax" equal to every vehicle? In other words, don't base it on the use of gasoline, but on the vehicle itself.

A "flat tax" if you will.

 

Regressive? Sure it is, but it has the (positive?) effect of forcing those who buy Kias onto the bus, which is where many seem to prefer we all be anyway.

 

I see a win/win. Our roads are paid for, and the poor are forced into public transportation which according to many is under-utilized.

 

Less cars, less pollution, and the majority of cars on the road will be better/newer/more efficient, and the roads get paid for on the backs of those "rich" enough to afford the tax. (Like ME! )

 

Or, how about Lexus Lanes? You could get rich people to 'voluntarily' pay more taxes, just like lotteries get poor people to.

 

Sounds like the perfect plan. </social engineering bullshit>

Edited July 30, 2008 by RangerM

[Imawhosure]

rofl ..

 

and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Leave the Public transport fund intact - there is already miniscule amount of money in it - at least compared to what is needed - let Public trasport fluorish now thyat it is needed, and desirable .... we finally hav an opportunity to catch up to the rest of the developed world and remedy 60 years of neglect ... please do not eff this up

 

Igor

 

Correction-------->You mean that there is now a golden opportunity to make the United States more SOCIALISTIC, just like Europe.

[Trimdingman]

Let the people who use the roads pay for the roads. Let the people who use public transit pay for public transit. Better still, privatize transit and privatize roads. Take government out of the equation. Let the people vote directly for the contractors. If they don't give you a good deal, kick them out and bring in a new one.

[NickF1011]

Let the people who use the roads pay for the roads. Let the people who use public transit pay for public transit. Better still, privatize transit and privatize roads. Take government out of the equation. Let the people vote directly for the contractors. If they don't give you a good deal, kick them out and bring in a new one.

 

There's only a certain point where individual citizens get involved. Your average citizen doesn't know a damn thing about roads or bridges or tunnels...as long as they work. There's a reason we vote for representatives. They are entrusted to make these decisions for us because we don't feel like being bothered with it.

[fmccap]

There's only a certain point where individual citizens get involved. Your average citizen doesn't know a damn thing about roads or bridges or tunnels...as long as they work. There's a reason we vote for representatives. They are entrusted to make these decisions for us because we don't feel like being bothered with it.

I'm glad we have the "experts" in DC to provide us with them.

[Trimdingman]

There's only a certain point where individual citizens get involved. Your average citizen doesn't know a damn thing about roads or bridges or tunnels...as long as they work. There's a reason we vote for representatives. They are entrusted to make these decisions for us because we don't feel like being bothered with it.

 

 

If the government is handling it, you are paying a thousand per cent too much.

[NickF1011]

I'm glad we have the "experts" in DC to provide us with them.

 

I'm not necessarily for letting the FEDS run it, but it's better than having private companies run the whole shebang. Imagine if an Enron happened to the company responsible for the roads in YOUR community. Whoops.

[NickF1011]

If the government is handling it, you are paying a thousand per cent too much.

 

When it comes to roads? Hardly. There's not much in the way of no-bid contracting done when it comes to highway construction and maintenance contracts. What do you think the private sector would do if they ran them? They would use the same bidding processes to find subcontractors to do all their work. Not EVERYTHING the government does is less efficient than private enterprise, especially in cases where it ends up being private enterprises that are really doing all the work.

[fmccap]

I'm not necessarily for letting the FEDS run it, but it's better than having private companies run the whole shebang. Imagine if an Enron happened to the company responsible for the roads in YOUR community. Whoops.

Remember that the Enron debacle was able to happen because of the government.

[NickF1011]

Remember that the Enron debacle was able to happen because of the government.

 

Enron happened because of Enron. No matter how much government oversight there is, there will always be a crook somewhere trying to steal a dime from investors.

 

Ironic that someone who is always demanding less government interference is blaming the government for not having ENOUGH oversight of an independent corporation.

[BlackHorse]

Enron happened because of Enron. No matter how much government oversight there is, there will always be a crook somewhere trying to steal a dime from investors.

 

Ironic that someone who is always demanding less government interference is blaming the government for not having ENOUGH oversight of an independent corporation.

 

Actually that's quite wrong Nick. Fmmccap is right, Enron happened because "old Kenny Boy" as Bush liked to call him, had enough pull that they got the federal government to change the laws regarding how commodities are traded thus enabling Enron to rip off the consumer for billions and cause a fair amount of suffering along the way. Ironically those laws were never changed after the Enron debacle and those same laws later enabled hedge funds and money markets to bid up the price of oil to well over 100 dollars a barrell and cause a fair amount of suffering along the way.

 

As for government oversight, the reality is that everything is regulated. It's just which set of regulations you prefer. What some call "deregulation" was not in fact deregulation at all. It was just a new set of regulations that set the playing feild very heavily in favor of wealthy persons and corporations while hampering the rest of us.

Edited July 31, 2008 by BlackHorse

[NickF1011]

Actually that's quite wrong Nick. Fmmccap is right, Enron happened because "old Kenny Boy" as Bush liked to call him, had enough pull that they got the federal government to change the laws regarding how commodities are traded thus enabling Enron to rip off the consumer for billions and cause a fair amount of suffering along the way. Ironically those laws were never changed after the Enron debacle and those same laws later enabled hedge funds and money markets to bid up the price of oil to well over 100 dollars a barrell and cause a fair amount of suffering along the way.

 

As for government oversight, the reality is that everything is regulated. It's just which set of regulations you prefer. What some call "deregulation" was not in fact deregulation at all. It was just a new set of regulations that set the playing feild very heavily in favor of wealthy persons and corporations while hampering the rest of us.

 

Sarbanes-Oxley could be considered a direct result of the downfall Enron and Worldcom. If you don't work for a large company, you have NOOOO idea how much additional government oversight and required compliance that SOX added to company overhead. That wasn't a case of shuffling around the rules. It created a whooooooole lot more of them.

[Trimdingman]

When it comes to roads? Hardly. There's not much in the way of no-bid contracting done when it comes to highway construction and maintenance contracts. What do you think the private sector would do if they ran them? They would use the same bidding processes to find subcontractors to do all their work. Not EVERYTHING the government does is less efficient than private enterprise, especially in cases where it ends up being private enterprises that are really doing all the work.

 

 

What is wrong with allowing the people to vote for the company that can do the job the most efficiently? When government is involved, there is corruption and over-charging. Let the companies lay their cards on the table. We give them a contract for a few years, and then when renewal time comes, other companies will have the opportunity to offer better deals. The one that gets the most popular vote gets the contract.

 

Government could be removed from a lot of things. If they were, we would soon become more prosperous. We need a constitutional amendment to reduce taxation to no more than 10%. That would be the upper limit. It should average around 5% or less. We don't need all this government. We are not communists.

[BlackHorse]

Sarbanes-Oxley could be considered a direct result of the downfall Enron and Worldcom. If you don't work for a large company, you have NOOOO idea how much additional government oversight and required compliance that SOX added to company overhead. That wasn't a case of shuffling around the rules. It created a whooooooole lot more of them.

 

 

Nick, learn something my friend. Learn.

 

[NickF1011]

Nick, learn something my friend. Learn.

 

 

Learn? From Keith Olbermann?

 

I know that SOX didn't cure all the problems that Enron was able to get away with, but the fact remains that it resulted in WAY more government oversight than previously, not just a shuffling of rules as you suggested.

[NickF1011]

What is wrong with allowing the people to vote for the company that can do the job the most efficiently? When government is involved, there is corruption and over-charging. Let the companies lay their cards on the table. We give them a contract for a few years, and then when renewal time comes, other companies will have the opportunity to offer better deals. The one that gets the most popular vote gets the contract.

 

Government could be removed from a lot of things. If they were, we would soon become more prosperous. We need a constitutional amendment to reduce taxation to no more than 10%. That would be the upper limit. It should average around 5% or less. We don't need all this government. We are not communists.

 

Most people don't want to be BOTHERED with picking out contractors for such things. I sure as hell don't. Even those who did take the time to study the contractors likely wouldn't know nearly enough about the business to come to anything close to an educated decision about why things cost what they do.

 

There is a place for government. Guaranteeing a solid transportation infrastructure is one of those places I'm willing to concede power to them.

[fmccap]

Even those who did take the time to study the contractors likely wouldn't know nearly enough about the business to come to anything close to an educated decision about why things cost what they do.

But you think all these politicians in Washington have a clue??? They don't have a clue.

 

 

 

 

If they did we wouldn't even be talking about our infastructure.

[suv_guy_19]

If they did we wouldn't even be talking about our infastructure.

 

 

Thats not necessarily true. There are so many priorities for government to address, there is often not enough to go around, and so things have to be managed. Once in a while, people realize there are problems, and funds are redirected to other areas. Ihave confidence that this will happen with the US infrastructure problem.

[NickF1011]

But you think all these politicians in Washington have a clue??? They don't have a clue.

 

 

 

 

If they did we wouldn't even be talking about our infastructure.

 

They have more of a clue than the clueless populace that elected them. It's their job to have a clue. It's not our job to worry about it.

[fmccap]

Thats not necessarily true. There are so many priorities for government to address, there is often not enough to go around, and so things have to be managed. Once in a while, people realize there are problems, and funds are redirected to other areas. Ihave confidence that this will happen with the US infrastructure problem.

Well down here this country formed our great union for the common defense of the states. It was intended for the states to keep there soverignty and do as they please. Maybe if we go back to less FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and leave things to the states as should be there would not be so many priorities for Washington. Remember 9-11, Washington didn't respond one bit that day and the whole thing took place over 6 - 7 hours. Let's give back the states there powers and let Washington worry about what they are supposed to worry about.