Don’t celebrate gas-tax holiday

K. A. Parker blames “liberals” for asking John McCain how he would pay for the temporary gas-tax suspension (Letters, 5/6). Parker suggests the government should swallow the revenue loss and simply “spend less.”

If the government spends less for infrastructure maintenance than it does now, the country will fall apart, literally. The 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a warning.

No one likes taxes, but we pay them so we can maintain our roads and bridges, and because we value other tax-supported amenities such as parks, schools, museums and libraries; police, firefighters, streetlights and sewers; clean air and water; safe food, medicines, buildings and products; and much, much more.

We must maintain our roads, now or later (at a higher cost). Collectively is how we have to do it. “Spend less” is often a good idea. But like so many things, it is easier said than done.

Joan Hancock
Raytown

Call me an elitist, but I must agree with Barack Obama that the gas tax-suspension plan Hillary Clinton is backing is no plan at all. It is nothing more than a cheap trick to get votes from those who are not familiar with the economic forces that set gas prices.

Gas supply is somewhat fixed right now, and if we lower the price people will buy more gas, causing the price to go back up. The tax break will disappear and then, after three months, the tax will be reapplied, making gas prices even higher than before. Sound good?

I have been reluctant to tell anyone which candidate to support so far, but I must point out blatant dirty tactics and lies. This is utter desperation on Clinton’s part, and it lets me see her true colors under pressure.

Tommy Burnett
St. Joseph

Comments

[devin]

Marc,
thanks for the links. That's helpful. I'm going off the published budget numbers at the government web sites. According to that, the federal aid highway program is due to receive almost $40 billion in 2008. Now, according to the article you sent from the government web site, some of that money is used for non-highway purposes. Specifically, a total of $4 billion was allocated to trail and bike-related accomodations from 1992-2005. That's a total of about $1/4 billion per year. That's less than 1% of the federal aid highway program, and it still leaves far more than $30 Billion that the gas tax collects that is available for highways. The article you sent also talks about Transportation Enhancement expenditures of $6 billion over the period of 1992-2005 (less than $1/2 billion annually) for trail-related activities, and an additional $70 million annually specifically for Recreation Trails. These are separate programs from the Federal Aid Highway programs, therefore they're not cutting into gas tax revenues.

Here's the summary: the Dept of Transportation gets $60-70 Billion annually, only $30 Billion of which is generated by the gas tax. The remaining $30-40 Billion comes from general revenues, so why should anything beyond the initial $30 Billion be exclusively devoted to highways? In actuality, we spend about $40 billion on highways, meaning highways get approximately the same amount of subsidy from the general revenue ($10 Billion) as transit-related activities. The problem with the Heritage Foundation article is they keep mixing up the gas tax revenues ($30 Billion) with the Dept of Transportation budget ($60-70 Billion) and using whichever figure happens to be convenient to make their point. You can prove just about anything you want to with numbers if you're free to simply pick the numbers convenient to you. It's just not a very intellectually honest approach. I don't blame you for falling for it though. I used to be a big fan of the Heritage Foundation and similar organizations until I started digging into the actual numbers and discovered the ways they're playing with them.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Devin that data came directly from the US government. The gas oline prices are not simply caused ONLY by America. China, India and a plethora of other industrialized countries not to exclude the other petroleum based, high demand products.
What I do know is that the cliams by Obama and Clinton regarding oil companies and their robust, over the top profts are bogus statements. These are publically traded companies and anyone can see their EPS and financials. I have yet to find one that is raking it in like the two liars claim.
I am not opposed to consumption taxation but I am not a proponent of targeting oil companies simply to get votes from ignorant Democrats that think the President sets the price on gas. I am for lean govt and accountability of govt. When a State Auditor finds that one of the entities is committing blatant fraud, I do not see why everyone is okay with that.

[Marctnts]

Devin,

Here's a good link to a few of the "non-infrastucture" things your highway dollars pay for:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/fundrec.htm

I also found a Heritage Foundation article which repeats NMMNG's claim that up to 40% of federal highway fund revenue is used for non-general-purpose projects, including 20% for public transit. Here's the link:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/BG1709.cfm

[devin]

NMMNG, please give a source for your assertion that only 60% of the Federal Highway Fund is used on highways. You've said this repeatedly, and I've repeatedly pointed out that the Federal Budget devotes $40 Billion to highway spending and the gas tax (i.e. the source of the Highway Fund) only collects about $30 Billion. The federal budget is widely available online. Numerous sources also attest to the US consuming about 400 million gallons of gas daily. Simple math (400mil * 365 *.18) gets us to about $30 Billion. Do you have any sources to back your claims, or are you simply repeating it until it becomes true?

[katman]

If NoMoreMrNiceGuy married MsNiceGal, what would they have? A Mismatch. And, if they had a child? A Miracle.

I apologize for that but I'm exhausted from wading through today's lengthy offering.

KATMAN

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Based on the theories of tax mongers, the easy fix is to raise income taxation to 100%.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

just like tax credits are the same cheap tricks to get votes. Funny how increasing foodstamps supposeldy will stimulate the economy. It is time to make government work within it's allocated budget not continually increase taxation. The Federal Highway Trust only allocate 60% to what it is supposed to be used for, the remaining 40% goes towards frivilous spending. We are not responsible for frivilous govt spending. If the federal gas tax will have little affect on the common citizen then how can confiscating 8-10 cents of profit from the energy companies have more positive appeal? It's called bogus socialism.
Most mmisinformed indoctrinated Democrat liberals have not even looked at ANY of the petroleum companies financials yet believe they know all the facts because Obama and Hillary said so. These same idiots believed everything Bill Jeff said as well. I got news for ya, there never was a surplus and there never will be.

[Not Your Average Joe]

What they are doing with tax money does not make any sense. If they had enough to fund the economic stimulus package, then they had too much already. Govt is not supposed to be a profit enterprise. They are not supposed to have a surplus...or a debt. Conversely, if instructure is not maintained while they are giving money back, then that is simply irresponsible. I tend to think its the latter and the stimulus was nothing but vote buying....without your money.

Anyway, Govt waste goes beyond infrastructure spending. The federal govt is far too large and spending far to much on poor causes. We give $1 billion in aid to Pakistan who is not our ally.

[Rogue]

Anyone who thinks the deficit will go away because we tax our citizens more, let me just say, can you say "drunken sailor"?

[JayhawkinMO]

In his letter, Mr. Burnett tells us that Hillary is guilty of "...blatant dirty tactics and lies" in promoting the suspension of the gas tax. If that is true then what is McCain guilty of as he, too, has offered up the same idea? Burnett, your comments are horse dung... I think the idea absurd because the suspension of the tax will just add to the deficit. Let our grandchildren pay for it! Not!!

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

Sorry...might should be want

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

Rogue

Your right. However, I would argue that it is your employers money and you don't pay for anything. Wait, they get it from the customers and, depending on the industry, this is often the government. Wow, the money cycle. Whose money is it really? Well, looking at the 20 in front of me, I would say the name on it is The USA. That is right, it is all our money. So, I might my share of our money that Rogue is holding hostage.

[Rogue]

Joan, it is YOUR money, the government doesn't pay for anything.....