Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Both parties want to increase gas tax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Both parties want to increase gas tax



    Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday unveiled the first bipartisan Senate proposal to raise the gas tax, broaching a dangerous political issue that lawmakers have avoided for years.

    The Murphy-Corker plan would raise the gas tax by 12 cents over the next two years, raising $164 billion over the next decade and covering the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund.

    It would index the gas tax to inflation, pegging it to the Consumer Price Index, to avoid future shortfalls.

    The lawmakers say it is time for Congress to pay for popular transportation programs instead of using budgetary gimmicks to hide their cost and pushing debt into the future.

    “We’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars in economic productivity because we’re failing to invest in our nation’s roadway and rails,” said Murphy. “You’re not going to find, virtually, any member of Congress who is proposing to spend less money on infrastructure over the next 10 years.”

    The question, they argue, is whether that spending will be covered by borrowing money from China or finding a way to pay for it now.

    Congress last raised the gas tax in 1993.

    Corker said he avoids violating Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge by pairing the gas tax hike with other tax-relief legislation, such as a proposal to renew certain expired tax provisions indefinitely.

    Corker said he vetted his proposal with the anti-tax group, which is led by Grover Norquist.

    “We’ve done some work and had some phone conversations with them,” he said.

    Americans for Tax Reform told The Hill in an email that it does not endorse the outline of the Corker-Murphy plan.

    “The highway trust fund does not have an under-taxing problem. It has an overspending problem,” said John Kartch, the group’s director of communications. “There is no good reason to raise the gas tax.

    Corker said making permanent popular tax credits, such as the research and development tax credit, the state and local sales tax deduction, the teacher tax credit and the deduction for parking at mass transit sites, would provide $189 billion in tax relief over the next decade.

    “I don’t think there is anybody who disputes making those permanent, by the way,” Corker said.

    Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group, immediately signaled its leeriness of the plan.

    “No worries ... let’s just propose a $164 billion tax increase,” Dan Holler, the spokesman for Heritage Action, tweeted.

    Club for Growth, another influential conservative group, rejected the proposal out of hand.

    “This is a $164 billion dollar tax increase, plain and simple. A gas tax hike would be both bad policy and terribly anti-growth. It’s not an example of political courage to avoid reforming a broken system,” said Chris Chocola, the Club's president.

    Murphy argued the proposal has the support of labor unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have campaigned together in favor of a gas tax increase.

    Corker dismissed a competing proposal by House Republicans to replenish the Highway Trust Fund by cutting the U.S. Postal Service’s Saturday delivery service.

    “Only in Washington would you take money from insolvent enterprise to fund another insolvent enterprise,” he said.

    The Postal Service reported a $1.9 billion loss in the second quarter of this year.

    “I think it’s a gimmick,” said Murphy of the House plan.

    The Highway Trust Fund, which funds transportation projects across the country, is projected to run out of money as early as August, putting more than 600,000 jobs at risk.

    The fund is currently funded by an 18 cents per gallon tax on gasoline and a 22 cents per gallon tax on diesel, but the revenue from the tax is not keeping pace with transportation spending.

    “Most Americans want to see us to continue to improve our infrastructure,” said Corker.

    Transportation advocates, who have been pushing for a gas tax increase for more than a year, applauded Corker and Murphy’s bipartisan proposal.

    “Our nation’s key infrastructure fund is rushing toward insolvency,” Transportation for America Director James Corless said in a statement.

    Advocates for increasing tolling to help pay for transportation projects also cheered the Corker-Murphy proposal, calling it “gutsy” to propose increasing the tax in an election year.

    “We applaud Sens. Murphy and Corker for their gutsy proposal to increase the federal gasoline and diesel taxes by six cents in each of the next two years to keep the federal Highway Trust Fund from going broke,” said International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association Executive Director Patrick Jones.

    Corker and Murphy aren't up for reelection until 2018.

    Jones said polls have shown that voters will support an increase in the gas tax if the money is used to pay for transportation improvements.

    He pitched tolling as a more viable funding source in the long run, noting that the Obama administration has already supported lifting a longterm ban on adding toll booths to existing highway lanes.

    “It will take a mix of funding solutions to keep our roads and bridges safe and reliable," Jones said. “All options should be on the table so that states can choose the funding methods that work best for them.”
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    Of course they do, we aren't bleeding enough, so they want to wring some more tax out of us.

    Comment


    • #3
      This kind of proposal doesn't bother me in the least. It's based entirely on the amount of a product consumed by an individual or entity, and is applied eqally across all income levels.

      Comment


      • #4
        Tax increase proposals don't bother you in the least?
        Originally posted by Broncojohnny
        HOORAY ME and FUCK YOU!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nash B. View Post
          Tax increase proposals don't bother you in the least?
          Not this one.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The King View Post
            Not this one.
            Because spending isn't an issue in all forms of government.

            Comment


            • #7
              If the gas tax came in trade for doing away with toll roads, I'd be in, but it won't.

              Our government is a double headed dildo that is firmly fucking us in the ass and looking for other orifices to attack.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yea, don't worry, tolls aren't going anywhere.
                Originally posted by racrguy
                What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                Originally posted by racrguy
                Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's a usage based tax increase proposal, so the user has ultimate control over the degree to which it affects them. Government spending will continue regardless, whether funded by taxes or by deficit spending (e.g., the Postal Service).

                  Agree with Sean about the toll roads...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sean88gt View Post
                    If the gas tax came in trade for doing away with toll roads, I'd be in, but it won't.

                    Our government is a double headed dildo that is firmly fucking us in the ass and looking for other orifices to attack.
                    and it's getting bigger every year.
                    "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The King View Post
                      It's a usage based tax increase proposal, so the user has ultimate control over the degree to which it affects them.
                      It would affect more than just the cost of driving.
                      Originally posted by Broncojohnny
                      HOORAY ME and FUCK YOU!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nash B. View Post
                        It would affect more than just the cost of driving.
                        True, but not to the degree inflation will once it gets going.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The King View Post
                          It's a usage based tax increase proposal, so the user has ultimate control over the degree to which it affects them. Government spending will continue regardless, whether funded by taxes or by deficit spending (e.g., the Postal Service).

                          Agree with Sean about the toll roads...
                          You do realize it's not feasible for everyone to just stop using gas, right? Sure, some people can commute via train, bus, carpool, etc. But they are in the minority.
                          Originally posted by BradM
                          But, just like condoms and women's rights, I don't believe in them.
                          Originally posted by Leah
                          In other news: Brent's meat melts in your mouth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The King View Post
                            This kind of proposal doesn't bother me in the least. It's based entirely on the amount of a product consumed by an individual or entity, and is applied eqally across all income levels.
                            Yeah but that's not the case at all. It disproportionately affects anyone that can't walk, ride a bike or use some form of mass transit to commute. It won't affect anyone living in DC or NYC but it'll affect almost everyone living in Texas and any other state that doesn't have massive urban areas with efficient government subsidized mass transit systems.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bcoop View Post
                              You do realize it's not feasible for everyone to just stop using gas, right? Sure, some people can commute via train, bus, carpool, etc. But they are in the minority.
                              Yes, I do realize that, but usage-based taxes still do not bother me in the least. Even those that affect me, such as the fuel tax.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X