High gas prices? You ain’t seen nuthin’

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Christopher Conklin writes “Bridge Safety Stirs Funding Debate“;

A congressionally mandated panel yesterday recommended more than doubling the tax, which since 1993 has been set at 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel, over five years to boost funding for transportation projects. The panel of public and private experts is hoping that states also will opt for big gas-tax increases.

The panel’s vision would take the U.S. down a more European path, with higher gas taxes and greater investment in high-speed rail and other modes of transportation.

“Nobody likes saying we’ve got to raise taxes,” said Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi, who is on the 12-member panel. “But there’s no way we’re going to get there without the gas-tax increase … The country has to come to grips with this.”

But three members of the panel, including Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, oppose gas-tax increases. They say the federal role in funding transportation, which is determined by Congress and laden with special-interest projects, is too flawed to warrant expansion. Instead, they suggest, the federal role should shrink and states should rely on toll increases and private investment to supplement the funds they get from gas taxes.

And yet, we’re to believe that we can afford universal health care and the other myriad of items the Democrats have promised – and at the same time still keep ourselves safe. The first answer is always “raise taxes”. How about we cut salaries and staff on Capitol Hill? How about we cut back on the free jets for Congress to fly back to their districts every week? How about we pay Congress just for the 100 days every year they’re actually in session? How about we turn their cafeteria into a cafeteria like our own (Link to Blue Crab Boulevard).

I’ll concede that one of government’s functions is highways and bridge building, but all of the other crap we pay for is not. And if the panel “hopes” that a federal increase in the gas tax is accompanied by a state increase in taxes, why do we have two government levels shouldering the responsibility? Why would a taxpayer in, say Nevada, which has less need for bridge and road repairs, feel good about paying for bridges and roads in Connecticut?

I’ll bet you, if we dumped the Congressional retirement system, we’d have more money to do the things that government should be doing, instead of rewarding them for sitting around on their ample behinds declaring how much I can afford to pay them.

Besides, if we did away with Congress’ bloated retirement system, they’d term-limit themselves.

Category: Economy, Politics, Society