Democrats Pushing for Tax Hike Over Infrastructure

[Pangloss]

Makes sense, right? Bridges collapse, people die, surely we need to raise money to pay for this? After all, engineers say we need to spend $9 billion/year for the next 20 years to pay for all the repairs. Holy cow, we'd better raise taxes! Well sure enough, Democrats in congress are already calling for a 5-cent/gallon tax hike on gasoline. But wait. We already collect $22 billion/year on gasoline. Oh, but that money is already spent on repairs, you say?

 

Oh really? Turns out it's not. Minnesota, site of the I35W bridge collapse, had been allocated tens of millions of dollars for infrastructure repair. It decided to spend it instead on things like bike path studies, and postponed bridge repairs. And apparently this sort of thing happens all the time -- pet projects in congressional home districts get favored while key infrastructure components get ignored.

 

All of this is a drop in the bucket compared with what we spend annually on road repair ($75 billion) and what we may need to spend, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (source), which is a whopping $155.5 billion. But that's only two years of normal spending. Do we really need to permanently raise taxes for something that will be solved in two years?

 

And isn't the real problem that they're spending current money inappropriately, and want to keep doing that?

 

Some additional reading:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1119213390

[iNow]

Two quick points:

 

1) That $155B is to fix existing problems, yet roads and bridges degrade each day. Hence, suggesting "problem solved in 2 years" only considers the current state, not future disrepair.

 

2) Why not raise more money AND spend it more wisely? It seems unecessary to treat the two approaches as mutually exclusive.

 

Further, the tax on gasoline is an added incentive to get the populace to support... no, demand... renewable energy. I'd say that is a step in the right direction. Do I like paying more for gas? Absolutely not. It sucks actually. However, I'd sure rather not keep polluting our planet and would appreciate having some better options available to us than our current dino fossil drinkers with wheels.

 

 

London bridge is falling down... falling down... falling down...

[Pangloss]

That $155B is to fix existing problems, yet roads and bridges degrade each day. Hence, suggesting "problem solved in 2 years" only considers the current state, not future disrepair.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't quite sure what they meant. They must be talking about projected infrastructure needs as opposed to immediate needs.

 

 

2) Why not raise more money AND spend it more wisely? It seems unecessary to treat the two approaches as mutually exclusive.

 

What I'm mainly annoyed about is that they're spending money on local pet projects and then telling us that they don't have enough money to pay for things we told them to pay for. The very same people who neglected these duties are the ones who are asking us for more money and promising to spend it correctly. We have two words for that in the private sector: "You're FIRED!"

[iNow]

What I'm mainly annoyed about is that they're spending money on local pet projects and then telling us that they don't have enough money to pay for things we told them to pay for. The very same people who neglected these duties are the ones who are asking us for more money and promising to spend it correctly.

I think all of us are annoyed by that, and it's not party specific. The system itself has become overwhelmed by ideologically cancerous representation. Where it hits home with me is healthcare. I can deal with some offroading in the truck due to a bit of cracked pavement or shaky supports, but when kids die by the thousands because of faulty spending, that's pretty sad, and speaks very poorly of the integrity of the system.

 

 

 

I wonder if Donald ever served as an apprentice...

[Sisyphus]

I keep waiting for ridiculous pork-barrel spending to be a major campaign issue. I thought maybe the Gravina Island "Bridge to Nowhere" would be an effective poster child for the corruption of the system, but I'm starting to think it's just impossible. Like the military-industrial complex, once this sort of thing is allowed to happen, there isn't any plausible, non-catastrophic means for it to stop. The only ones who theoretically have the power to stop it (that is, Congress) have a huge vested interest in not doing so.

[jackson33]

President Bush, has already said the proposed 5 cent a gallon gas tax increase "was not the way to go". Though not said and in an election year, I would think a veto would be reality.

 

The Interstate/Road/Etc. repair fund or the taxes that are collected from Gas/Diesel are distributed rather loosely. About 8% is directly spent and the rest sent back to the states as *Grant Money*. Minnesota decided to build a Sports Stadium and few states are actually spending these funds on roads.

[iNow]

The Interstate/Road/Etc. repair fund or the taxes that are collected from Gas/Diesel are distributed rather loosely. About 8% is directly spent and the rest sent back to the states as *Grant Money*. Minnesota decided to build a Sports Stadium and few states are actually spending these funds on roads.

 

Can you please advise the specific source from which your data above came?

[Pangloss]

I can't answer to the specific figure, but that's the line that a number of media stories are taking over the last couple of days (states were provided with money from the gas tax revenue and spent it in a number of non-infrastructural ways). I'd like to know more specific information here as well.

 

The story is essentially playing out as follows: House & Senate Democrats call a press conference and declare the Bush administration to be at fault for the problem, saying that the tax cuts and Iraq have robbed this funding (not true). The next day the White House holds a press conference and declares Congress to be at fault for the problem, saying that the money is already budgeted and collected, it just hasn't been spent (which as you pointed out above doesn't appear to be accurate either).

 

By golly it's a good thing we got those Democrats into power, so they can fix everything Bush screwed up, huh?

[swansont]

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't quite sure what they meant. They must be talking about projected infrastructure needs as opposed to immediate needs.

 

It's both.

 

From the article:

"The $75 billion in annual spending by federal, state, and local governments combined falls short of levels needed just to maintain the status quo."

 

If that's accurate, it means in two years they will just be further behind.

[jackson33]

286 Billion was collected in 2006, from Gas/Diesel taxes, paid at the pump by consumers. This does not include State or local taxes nor the Hi way Users tax which Truckers pay up to 550.00 each year or the Motor home owners pay. Also not included are billions paid by truckers who pay additional taxes for every mile driven in each State, which goes directly to that State.

 

According to an*AP* dispatch on 8-9-07, which I receive 10 to 20 daily on ATT Front page and an article on *CNN.com/politics*, 8% of the US funds go to highway/bridge maintenance. However by law, the fund collections must be returned and done so by grants to the states and on a per/capita basis.

 

Since in the US (much more in Europe), we collect over half a trillion in taxes for the expressed purpose of Road/Bridge repair or operations pertaining to road control (Weigh Stations, Safety Checks etc) I hardly think a Fed 5 cent increase should be needed and the revamping of local priorities the objective of Congress.

[iNow]

According to an*AP* dispatch on 8-9-07, which I receive 10 to 20 daily on ATT Front page and an article on *CNN.com/politics*, 8% of the US funds go to highway/bridge maintenance. However by law, the fund collections must be returned and done so by grants to the states and on a per/capita basis.

I hope you realize, Jackson33, that the CNN (or AP) report had to get IT'S information from somewhere regarding the 8%, and it's THAT somewhere that I was asking you share.

 

Saying you saw it on the news is a bit of a BS response, since the news just spins the true data, and you didn't even bother finding the specific reference. Where's the true data? Where's the beef?

 

 

 

EDIT: Since I seriously doubt you care, I've found the article you reference FOR you. Is it really that hard Jackson33 to support your claims? Come on, dude.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/bush.newser.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is distributed through grants to states, which decide how it will be spent. Federal money accounts for about 45 percent of all infrastructure spending.

 

The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges.

 

More than 70,000 of the nation's bridges are rated structurally deficient, including the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River last Wednesday. The American Society of Civil Engineers says repairing them all would require spending at least $9.4 billion a year for 20 years. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minnesota, says his tax-increase proposal would raise about $25 billion over three years.

 

 

Here's what you wrote:

 

President Bush, has already said the proposed 5 cent a gallon gas tax increase "was not the way to go". Though not said and in an election year, I would think a veto would be reality.

 

The Interstate/Road/Etc. repair fund or the taxes that are collected from Gas/Diesel are distributed rather loosely. About 8% is directly spent and the rest sent back to the states as *Grant Money*. Minnesota decided to build a Sports Stadium and few states are actually spending these funds on roads.

 

286 Billion was collected in 2006, from Gas/Diesel taxes, paid at the pump by consumers. This does not include State or local taxes nor the Hi way Users tax which Truckers pay up to 550.00 each year or the Motor home owners pay. Also not included are billions paid by truckers who pay additional taxes for every mile driven in each State, which goes directly to that State.

 

According to an*AP* dispatch on 8-9-07, which I receive 10 to 20 daily on ATT Front page and an article on *CNN.com/politics*, 8% of the US funds go to highway/bridge maintenance. However by law, the fund collections must be returned and done so by grants to the states and on a per/capita basis.

 

Since in the US (much more in Europe), we collect over half a trillion in taxes for the expressed purpose of Road/Bridge repair or operations pertaining to road control (Weigh Stations, Safety Checks etc) I hardly think a Fed 5 cent increase should be needed and the revamping of local priorities the objective of Congress.

[jackson33]

Thanks for confirming my post, but everything said has been in the news for several days. In short, taxes collected for a particular purpose are not being spent on that purpose. To increase the tax would do little, if the States are allowed to freely spend the money on whatever...Remember that 24B directly linked to projects, is dwarfed by what each State collects independent from the Fed, but is also collected under the pretense of Road/Bridge repair.

 

If your trying to say, Congress should increase Fed Gas/Diesel tax .05, then fine and this is your right. I just happen to disagree....

[swansont]

286 Billion was collected in 2006, from Gas/Diesel taxes, paid at the pump by consumers.

 

Um, no. That's the amount of the transportation spending bill, which is spread out over several years. The annual revenue from gas/diesel tax is about an order of magnitude smaller.

[bascule]

I'm reminded of 9/11 used to build a broader, more comprehensive picture of a national problem which had until then been largely ignored by the public at large.

 

The difference is that the Democrats are actually going to use money to fund a solution to this problem, whereas Bush (via OMB/veto power) and the Republicans decided to fund their "solution" with debt, enough to drive down the value of the dollar in the international marketplace.

[iNow]

Thanks for confirming my post

 

Dude, are you high?!? :confused:

 

The article said that $24B was devoted to highway and bridge projects by law. This number is 8% of of the $286B Highway Bill.

 

You said that $286B was collected from gas/diesel taxes, and that only 8% of these funds go to highway and bridge projects. You also implied that the remaining monies collected from gas/diesel taxes was being used to build sports stadiums and the like, yet the $286 had nothing to do with gas/diesel tax.

 

I called you out on this blaring inaccuracy, and showed as clearly as possible that your facts and figures were, quite simply, false. Yet, you responded, "Thanks for confirming my post."

 

Wow. Just... wow.

 

 

 

In short, taxes collected for a particular purpose are not being spent on that purpose. To increase the tax would do little, if the States are allowed to freely spend the money on whatever.

<...>

If your trying to say, Congress should increase Fed Gas/Diesel tax .05, then fine and this is your right. I just happen to disagree....

 

See point #2 in post #2. Thanks.

[ParanoiA]

In short, taxes collected for a particular purpose are not being spent on that purpose.

 

Yes, that does appear to be the case...

 

About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is distributed through grants to states, which decide how it will be spent.

 

The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges.

 

So, are we going to get rid of the percentage we spend on bridges out of the transportation bill? Why are we funding the same thing out of different taxes? I love how we tax things from so many different points, complicate the hell out of it...

 

I also love how we just give our elected representatives the out. If you can't blame Bush, then no one's at fault?

 

So, let me get this straight...they've had billions of dollars to pay for this stuff, but they've mismanaged these funds due to other "pet projects" and things that are more important than falling bridges - bridges that have been declared "deficient" no less.

 

And these representatives have managed to swindle the public into not only absolving them from blame - on which it clearly lies - but they've actually tricked the public into thinking we need to raise taxes!! And it doesn't stop there. Now they're turning their blatant ineptitude into a "political position" from which to aid in getting elected! I stand in awe of their superiority in controlling the minds of the american sheeple...

 

I need to see if I can turn my next stupid mistake at work into a raise and promotion...

 

2) Why not raise more money AND spend it more wisely? It seems unecessary to treat the two approaches as mutually exclusive.

 

They are mutually exclusive since you don't need MORE money if you're spending it wisely. Government doesn't worry too much about spending too much money since they have no consequences for spending it. If they run out, just raise taxes and get more. If the public gives you any flack about it, just say it's "for the children"...

[john5746]

And isn't the real problem that they're spending current money inappropriately, and want to keep doing that?

 

That is the sad thing about this next election. Both parties are spending like crazy and who knows which is worse.