For once, former Gov. Mark Warner has a policy I can agree with…I wonder why so few people, especially Democrats, are letting people know about it.
Mark Warner is RIGHT!
Published: June 27, 2008Posted in: Catch-All
About the Author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter. 
Loading ...
Jim – just a thought if a gas tax is designated to be utilized for road construction – and cars/ trucks are the users of the roads – isn’t a gas tax a reasonable solution to the transportation issue?
I realize I am setting myself up to be attacked as a “tax and spender” – but I’ll be honest, I would rather be labeled as such than a tax and borrower… If we want responsible government to provide services for us we need to find ways to pay for those services that don’t include running up the Chinese charge card.
Remember Warner says he against tax increases but once in office does something else. Don’t be tricked by his tactics because if you do then get ready to pay a lot more than 6 cents.
See, government spending is so darn efficient that it just can’t find two pennies to rub together.
It just needs to dip into our pockets for more money, because the latest “crisis” isn’t enough of a crisis for them to reprioritize any of their existing budgets at all.
BK – the only problem is that government doesn’t have any other source of revenue.
Seriously Bush has borrowed between $700,000,000,000 and $900,000,000,000 from China for the war in Iraq alone rather than raising taxes/ selling war bonds. Is this solution – being indebted to a totalitarian communist country really preferable to responsible government spending? I’m a Blue Dog, I just don’t believe the government should spend more than it takes in. I realize it’s fashionable for y’all to be against taxes, which is great, who doesn’t hate taxes? But, then we need a Newt back in the House to stop run-away government spending.
Ragnar, is “Pavlov” your middle name?
We talk about the General Assembly, and you still bark out “Bush” – there were do-wop singers in the 50s who were one hit wonders. You’re reminding me of them.
Brian,
I am still leaning towards voting for Mark Warner for the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner, but on this issue I disagree with him. But I doubt Gilmore is going to come out in support of a fuel tax increase so he is not going to gain any ground with me on this issue.
As you pointed out on your blog, even Ronald Reagan was willing to increase the fuel tax when increased revenue was necessary to fund transportation maintenance and construction.
As for you “Pavlov” comment: While it might be wrong to blame Bush alone for all the deficit spending, it is not wrong to point out that Republican control of our federal government, which Bush was a part of, cut taxes without cutting spending. Republican leadership resulted in BORROW AND SPEND fiscal policies that resulted in mushrooming deficits.
What does Bush have to do with Saslaw’s bill?
Bush is part of the Borrow and Spend fiscal policies visited upon us by Republicans. Bush is a Republican.
Saslaw’s bill would increase the fuel tax so that those that benefit from transportation maintenance and construction pay for it. No free lunch.
The Ports are owned by the State. Since these road projects benefit a state owned interest then the taxes should be state wide. Or Heaven forbid, budgets meant for ports! Tolls on only the new roads would tax the other users, the shipping companies.
Fuel Taxes would amount to inflationary pressure on any food or good costs that are transported by local fuel. The poorest among us would be hurt the most. Many wouldn’t even use those new roads.
Tolls placed on new roads would be true user fees. If it was advantageous economically enough then they would use the new roads. Shipping companies could choose whether or not there was benefit to enduring toll costs. Increase costs through tolls may be offset by volume, shorter travel, and less idle time. If expanding the ports brings such an economic boon and provides for countless high paying jobs, then that should be leveraged in covering the costs.
Under a fuel tax, there are no alternatives for struggling families that buy gas to go to work or buy food and goods transported under increased taxation costs.
LittleDavid, by your logic, those who benefit from schools should be the only ones paying for them.
I don’t have any kids in Virginia public schools. Can I have my tax dollars back?
Brian,
Yes, those that benefit from schools should be those that pay for it. In my opinion every citizen should pay school taxes because every citizen benefits from schools whether they have school age children or not.
It is my opinion that strong arguments can be made that those who put their kids into private school should not have to pay the tax or should receive tax credits for the cost of private school.
But, Brian, I am keenly interested in how, although your worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan, you will disagree with him that the consumers of transportation should be the ones to pay for the consumption.
Britt,
The travelers of tollroads, by paying the toll, would subsidize the travelers of freeways. Are the tollroad payers going to receive a tax credit for the price they paid at the pump for the fuel tax while they still pay the toll? Are not the tollroad payers being double taxed? They pay at both the pump and at the tollbooth.
LittleDavid, your logic that every citizen benefits from public schools whether they have children or not applies to roads as well.
Everyone benefits from roads. Do you eat? Guess what! Unless you’re a farmer, someone used the roads to get that to you.
Clothing? Unless you make your own, someone used the roads to stock that store where you bought your last shirt.
Brian,
Actually you make my point (and Ronald Reagan’s point as well) everyone benefits from our transportatiion infrastructure. Ronald Reagan (and Dwight Eisenhower) seemed to think a fuel tax was the most fair way of getting those that benefit from it to pay for it.
Well, when you contradict yourself, I’m bound to make one of your points.
Why do you bother to make the point that “those who benefit from transportation maintenance and construction pay for it” if that’s everybody?
In that regard, Saslaw’s gas tax in contrary to “everyone pays.”
Brian,
Please educate me where Saslaw’s bill is contrary to everyone pays.
You know, you are starting to sound like a stuttering fool.
But but but, I’m a Repub-Repub-Repulican.
You do not even agree with Ronald Reagan.
Davey, must you resort to childish personal attacks?
If I don’t drive, I don’t pay a gas tax.
Brian,
Exactly, if you do not drive you do not pay the gas tax. But if you purchase a gallon of milk, you pay the tax indirectly.
Seems fair to me, or do you object? Ronald Reagan seemed to understand this was fair.
Or sales taxes. Or hell…raise corporate taxes, and we all can “indirectly” pay for roads.
Only the left sees raising taxes as a way to be “fair” – the truly fair thing is to decide if transportation is a “crisis” when they write the budget, and not in a “special session” after they’ve spent all the money on everything else.
I know about Reagan -trust me – far more than you. I’ve frequently written about how he wasn’t the anti-tax libertarian that the Ron Pauls and Libertarians like to think he was.
Brian,
No to all the alternatives you propose.
Those that benefit from transportation improvements should pay for it. Even Ronald Reagan agreed to an increase in the fuel tax to pay for transportation maintenance as pointed out in your own blog. However you personally seem to think we should cut taxes while borrowing the the money necessary to fund transportation maintenance. I disagree with you.
The needed additional revenue should come from fuel tax increases and not tollroads, abuser fees or taxcuts.
Here’s an idea. How about you debate what I actually think rather than what I “personally seem to think” – that way you can actually debate me rather than the false argument you set up.
If transportation is in a crisis, then take some of the 78 billion dollars the state spends every year and give more of it to transportation.
So, since you don’t like sales taxes to fund transportation, how about that half-percent of the current sales tax that goes to transportation now. Would you like to cut that and shift it to a higher gas tax in the name of fairness?
Brian,
To keep it short, YES.