Post tags Deeds as tax-raiser
By Brian Kirwin | Friday, May 22nd, 2009 | PoliticsThe Washington Post endorsed Creigh Deeds in the June 9th Democratic Primary because
“Mr. Deeds courageously voted for a proposal that included raising the state’s gas tax.”
That, and the Post’s assertion that Deeds is not the conservative Democrat people thinks he is, should give Deeds pause before he starts celebrating.
“Some progressive voters may look past Mr. Deeds, assuming he’s too far to the right on social issues. They should look again.”
The Post made the case that Deeds is a superb tax-raiser and put some dents in his 2nd Amendment reputation.
If Deeds wins the nomination, McDonnell may very well use this endorsement as a mailpiece.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "Post tags Deeds as tax-raiser"
Wow, give the Washington Post credit for sabotaging Deeds and painting him as a tax and spender.
Yea, Deeds isn’t really pro 2nd amendment. Just look at his past NRA enndorsements against Republicans that should be ashamed of themselves. Laughable.
I’ll give the Post some credit. Maybe they’re “trying” to protect Virginia from McAuliffe.
Based on what the WaPost endorsements states, I can say with some certainty that if Deeds were to be the Democratic nominee in the election he probably will end up with my vote. I now regret not having asked for an absentee ballot for the Democratic primary before I headed out this time. I’m in Ohio right now and I am fairly certain I will not get back in time to vote.
He (Deeds) is even in favor of increasing the fuel tax to raise the revenue needed to improve our transportation problems!
McDonnell wants to do everything with tolls.
Do you realize that nationwide something like 33% of all the revenue collected from tolls goes to paying for collecting the tolls? Meanwhile 99% of all the money raised from fuel tax goes into the highway trust fund. Now, if you want to point to McDonnell’s position as being a job creation thing, well, you will have a point. It puts people on the public payroll doing something we really do not need to have done. But if what we are wanting to do is fund transportation improvement via the most efficient method, Deeds’ position is superior.
If McDonnell were to use the WaPo endorsement against Deeds, I don’t think the Deeds Campaign would have a problem bringing back the whole the NRA endorsement Deeds in 2005.
Britt, if a Democrat is dumb enough to campaign on raising taxes, all I have to say is “Go ahead. Make my day.”
Yea Brian. The Washington Post and David are trying to convince me that Deeds is a Tax and Spender. Not healthy if they want crossover votes.
LittleDavid, is it any wonder the statistics look bad on tolls. I made the mistake of following the first Mapquest map I came across on my trip to Minnesota and ran the gauntlet of tolls. I certainly see how the toll revenues go in large amounts to pay for toll collection. In some states you’re pretty much trapped on tollways and they have occassional islands for gas and overpriced fast food spread along it. Virtual mini-malls. I was surprised at the extravagance of it all. Starbucks even! Very nice bathrooms too that flushed automatically and had a state of the art hands free sink. Toll collection has become an industry unto itself. Who knows what will happen as far as paying for stuff. If it is tolls, I hope we’ll go with something far simpler.
99% goes to transportation funds? You’re talking about Federal gas taxes? If so, how could that possibly compare to Virginia and how things would be done here?
Brian,
Well what is the Republican candidate running on? He’s running on paying for transportation improvements with tolls. Why do Republicans think it is wrong to raise fuel taxes but fine and dandy to put up a toll booth to raise revenue? My Republican Senator Wagner in Richmond even wants to take existing highways that are already paid for like I-85 and I-95 and put up tollbooths at the North Carolina state line to raise revenue.
Britt,
We are already collecting a fuel tax here in Virginia, correct? So the bureaucracy already exists for collecting the tax. The increased revenue could be raised by increasing the fuel tax at zero increased expense for collection. But if we do it with tollways a large part of revenue will go into the new tollway authorities payroll. This is why the ATA (American Trucking Associations) prefers increased fuel taxes instead of tolls to fund transportation needs. Fuel taxes are much more efficient. The ATA is not some left wing liberal group either. The guy I am contracted to (Duane Acklie) served as President of the ATA a few years back. During the 2008 election cycle Duane made something like $64,000 in campaign contributions (I might be off by a few dollars) and every dime of it went to Republican candidates and organizations.
I thought Republicans were against big government! So why is it that when it comes to transportation, suddenly they shift gears and want to increase the size of government with a bloated tollway authority payroll?
“Why do Republicans think it is wrong to raise fuel taxes but fine and dandy to put up a toll booth to raise revenue?”
Because voters think it’s wrong to raise fuel taxes but fine and dandy to put up a toll booth. Every poll shows the same thing.
I don’t have the same take as Brian on this David, but the result is similiar. From past performance Virginia has demostrated that a large percentage does not have to go back into collections itself. I would be opposed to tolling existing roads. Funding above toll revenues should come from the transpportation and YES the general fund. The general fund is a general fund NOT an education only fund. Either we have a tranportation crisis or we don’t. If we do, the other cry babies need to shut up about their share of robbing the taxpayer.
Just like with Beach red light cameras bordering Chesapeake while posting some in high crash zones, politicians always try to tax outside of their locality. Thus the idea of putting tolls at a state line. Sounds slick but, only shows the true motive…….raising revenue for revenues sake.
The reason I am opposed so much to fuel taxes is that it damages the economy too much. From plastics to goods transportation, petroleum prices already erect a hurdle at times; taxes place additonal costs on production and attacks the economy and employment. With the exception of tolling new roads, tolling and increasing fuel taxes is a bad idea. Our economy is already in dire straights.
Brian Kirwin,
OK, well then I am going to have to stay in the minority. But I hope Duane Acklie takes into account which candidates represent his interests when he takes out his checkbook to make campaign contributions this year. Perhaps he might find Creigh Deeds worthy of breaking his “Republican only” record.
Britt Howard,
First off, a tax on transportation fuel is not going to affect the price of the crude oil going into plastics. Second, since you are bringing up the cost of goods transportation, don’t you think the ones engaged in goods transportation for a living might know a little bit more about how to most efficiently transport the goods? I am not alone in the trucking industry to think increased fuel taxes are the best method to raise revenue. Believe me, the ATA (American Trucking Associations) are not going to come out in favor of increased taxes unless there is a bonafide need for the increase.
Poor road maintenance and congestion costs the trucking industry billions every year in lost productivity and increased maintenance costs. Now I think the members of the ATA think an increased fuel tax which is dedicated to road maintenance and construction will result in fatter profits. Personally, I think the industry is so cut throat competitive that when expenses go down, it will result in reduced freight rates. Kind of counter intuitive isn’t it? Increased taxes on goods transportation might result in lower goods transportation costs.
How can you possibly argue that increased fuel taxes are bad but putting up tollbooths is good? Is the truck driver going to somehow find money placed in his wallet by the magical tollroad ferry to pay the toll and only the increased fuel tax is going to end up eventually being paid by the consumer?
Even if Virginia somehow beats the national average for the costs of collecting the tolls, they are not going to beat the zero increased collection cost of an increase in the fuel tax. We already have the wonderful IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) to ensure the trucker pays fuel tax on the fuel consumed in our state even if they never purchase fuel in our state. Even if we can get enough people to man the tollbooths at minimum wage, you’re going to have to have an administrative staff, a managerial staff etc that are going to demand higher then minimum wage. We already have all of that in VDOT (Virginia Dept of Transportation) and there is no need to duplicate it all with a new tollroad authority.
I can go on and on about the evils of tollroads. I have witnessed these evils with my own eyes as well as hearing them being reported on by the local media in the areas that have them.
I have more experience in the last dozen years traveling our nations roadways then you will probably accumulate in a lifetime. However my knowledge gained through experience pales in comparison to the knowledge contained in the combined membership of the ATA and the OOIDA (Owner Operator Independent Driver Association). I can say with almost 100% certainty that an overwhelming majority of truckers are against tolls. There might be one exception, perhaps the Teamsters Union likes tolls, since they seem to disagree with all the rest of us on just about everything else, maybe they disagree on this too, chuckle.
I going to wrap this windy rant up. I hope you will at least stop to consider the opinion of the voice of experience on this issue. I think it is obvious that the experience on this issue is in the possession of the trucking industry and not the politicians in Richmond. Truckers are not out to torpedo the American economy or make our industry less efficient or competitive. The better the economy is, the more freight there is to be hauled. The more efficient our industry is, the more of that freight will be hauled by truck and it is our hope the more competitive products made in America will be in the global marketplace.
David, we’re not talking about the exact same things here. The trucking industry deals with multiple states. I’m dealing with Virginia only.
I’m talking about tolls only on NEW roads. Of course that won’t pay for itself if the government runs it and they will insist on more revenue. To that I say, privatize a new road or take additional money out of the general fund.
I don’t dispute that the trucking industry has a lot of expertise. They also deal with multiple state laws and speak in general terms when they consider their interests. They also likely see tolls or fuel taxes as the only realistic alternatives. Guys like you might also deal with not being fully compensated for fuel like you’re supposed to by companies that are compensated by the government for fuel use. Who protects the truckers there? That issue was in the news a bit back. Although, I might be mangling it some here.
We’re also talking about truckers/companies paying taxes and car drivers paying taxes that don’t even use the new roads. Part of this may be based on foisting a higher percentage of the cost on normal drivers. We also have the issue of the state itself which should be paying more given that the port authority is STATE OWNED and not Hampton Roads owned.
You misunderstand my point on plastics. That referred to fluctuations in petroleum being an issue unto itself. For plastics, petroleum prices would affect that, then as a finished good(resin) would face additional costs in transportation fuel and taxes(diesel fuel plus additional taxes) which was the additional point. I did not mean that increased fuel taxes would be a direct tax on plastic. I meant that plastic is already affected by general petroleum flutuations and taxed for moving it like othe products not fluctuating on petroleum costs.
When it comes to commerce, moving that truck load locally would not be taxed by a toll on new roads or in many cases additional tolls. Local companies and people with knowledge of local roads could avoid those tollways in many instances. Sometimes I drive from the Indian River Rd. area of VB to Moyock, NC. Do you think I EVER take the Chesapeake toll way? I know a way around it. Tolls would exact more on travel outside the locality that are dependent on the new roads.
This is basically a contest of shifting the percentage of cost. Your average Joe and avergae local business will pay more with addional fuel taxes. The grocery store worker near Pungo won’t have to pay for a third crossing if it was tolled.
This is also about the right amount of state money being spent on transportation period . Again, the general fund is not an education fund.
Britt,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this, and I hope you read this.
You know a way around the toll. Problem is that some truckers will also learn the route and as these routes are discovered, the local citizens will get upset about all the truckers taking the alternative route. They then get the politicians to pass laws mandating that trucks pay the toll. If the locals can’t get the laws passed, they nag the local Chief of Police into getting his force to harass the trucks off the alternative routes.
I can go on and on about the evil of tolls. For example, you say you and a knowledgeable trucker can take an alternative route. In order to save a $30 toll, the trucker takes the alternative route because it is only a few miles further and only has a handful of stoplights involving only about $5 in additional fuel. But we are supposed to be trying to break our addiction to foreign oil. Shouldn’t we be encouraging our truckers to take the most fuel efficient route? Isn’t putting a toll on the the most fuel efficient route like encouraging the trucker to waste fuel?
Leave your response