« COMING SOON: ANOTHER POST ABOUT “WHAT EVERY DEMOCRAT NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT AL FRANKEN” | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN SAYS HE’S NOT A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE OF IDEOLOGY, BUT “BECAUSE SO MANY REPUBLICANS ARE HUGE JERKS.” »
AP: OBERSTAR PROPOSES GAS TAX INCREASE, BUSH OPPOSES INCREASE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 9, 2007
"WASHINGTON — A week after a deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis, President Bush dismissed today raising the federal gasoline tax to repair the nation's bridges at least until Congress changes the way it spends highway money.
'The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first,' Bush said. 'That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.'" Source: Associated Press, August 9, 2007
Click here for the complete story.
###
"The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges.
More than 70,000 of the nation's bridges are rated structurally deficient, including the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River last Wednesday. The American Society of Civil Engineers says repairing them all would require spending at least $9.4 billion a year for 20 years. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., says his tax-increase proposal would raise about $25 billion over three years." Source: Associated Press, August 9, 2007
Click here for the complete story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 23 Comments »
23 Responses to “AP: OBERSTAR PROPOSES GAS TAX INCREASE, BUSH OPPOSES INCREASE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:45 AM
How about Oberstar stops building $100 million worth of bike trails in his district and starts block-granting that money to the state. Oh, and the “temporary tax increase” is a fraud. Taxes never go away…kind of like herpes.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:52 AM
…kind of like herpes.”
….or bad, tax-hungry politicians. (Or are they the same thing?)
August 9th, 2007 at 11:52 AM
August 9th, 2007 at 11:53 AM
So it is this blogs opinion that Tim Pawlenty is right on this issue, and that George Bush is also right?
Why don’t Republicans stand for anything anymore?
The Republican Party is the party of Pawlenty except when it’s the party of Bush.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Taxes would go away if Republicans stood for something. Actually the truth is some taxes go away, but the teporary ones for whatever reason take their place. This is the game that Republican politicians play they cut taxes, but look the other way when a “Temporary” tax is up for debate, or in Pawlenty’s case they stand against it for 20 years and then when their is an opponeing for political gain they support it with the gas tax and stadium tax being prime examples of his little game.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:58 AM
wow that was a pretty impressive way to spell opening, I probably need to calm down a little bit.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Pawlenty for against the gas tax before he was against it. fliiiiip flooop
August 9th, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Your own governor talked about infrastructure repair when the cameras were on him.
News flash people: bridges and roads are not repaired by the divine spirit of tax cuts flying up and magically making the structural problems going away. Not even the spirit of Ronald Reagan can do that!
Instead, children, people are required to purchase material and make repairs. This requires money, which again is not provided by praying to the divine spirit of St. Ronald!
Revenue increases are needed – do you really want to blame MnDOT for wasting the money, when you’re lieutenant governor has been running it for years. Basically children, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want a government small enough to drown, you will have to live with bridges which occasionally do the same to you.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Thank you, Ulysses, for treating Minnesotans with the distain we all know you have. But how about this one:
Listen up, children, and you will hear.
How the DFL spin will drive you to tears.
You’ll hear the gnashing of teeth,
and the moans and the wails,
and the tales bemoaning,
the lack of coins in their pails.
In truth, my dear children,
there is plenty to spare.
If the clowns in St. Paul,
actually had a “pair”.
We dump money into trains,
both of light rail and NorthStar.
Each “meant” to get,
commuters outta their cars.
And now a new rail line,
bettween the downtowns,
will suck over a Billion,
as the Taxpayer frowns.
And if the gas tax revenues,
do not cover the need.
There are plenty of programs,
to cut and to bleed.
Like arts centers on prairies,
or Iron Range freeways.
Both used by as many
as 3 people a day.
So children, let’s just try
to prioritize what’s needed.
Instead of kneejerking and hammering,
the our wallets that are bleeding.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Ulysses priorities are to continue wasting tax dollars on worthless social programs and increasing taxes even more so that he can steal from them later on.
Ulysses are you dumb or just plain stupid?
August 9th, 2007 at 2:13 PM
One addition:
As I end this sad poem,
of government greed and fluff.
Just think: $3 Billion surplus,
and ask “HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?!?!?!”
August 9th, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Just for fun, Ulysses, I’ll play the role of the “child” to your role as “Big Daddy Warbucks”:
I gaze up at you and ask,
“Gee Daddy…over $3 billion fell from the sky, into Big Government’s hands last spring. That would have over doubled MDOT’s budget! But didn’t Large Marg and Larry the Looter blow all that dough on other stuff? Gee, Daddy, couldn’t we have used that money to fix that bridge?”
August 9th, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Excess spending on “social programs” is not the reason our ROAD system is going into decay. If we were to simply dedicate 100% of the gas tax and 100% of the vehicle sales tax to roads and bridges and the feds gave the states money via a need-based block grant system (instead of a politically based ear-mark system) this debate wouldn’t even be happening.
This isn’t even about DFL vs. GOP as much as it is about career politicians vs. common sense. And Oberstar is the champion of career politicians.
August 9th, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Marc you could not be more wrong. Are you claiming there is no waste on social programs?
This does sit right on our local liberals who push to spend on mass transit that few will ever use! We have watched one program after another fail due to liberal programs and the roads and bridges are just another. Hell even Mpls own beloved public library system could not survive forever, fact is the liberals and the MN DFL have been purposely spending on wasteful social programs and mass transit knowing they would be short on true needs for the public. It is the game they have played for years so the can cry foul when there is not enough money for police, fire, roads and bridges.
This state has a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem!!! Fact is if this state was not set so the rural areas kept the liberal cities alive they would have all gone bankrupt by now and what we would have is abandon liberal cities in need of repair all across the US.
Can a liberal point to a city run by liberals that is self sufficient? Is there on run by liberals that does not have extra high crime, extra low schools scores, and mush of it’s population in poverty?
Liberalism will always bring people to the lowest level as it favors the weak and incompetent.
August 9th, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Oy. Just when I think the Dems have hit bottom, they dig a bit more.
1. It’s not been proven the bridge fell due to lack of maintenance. If the engineers said it was OK — and they did — what should have been done — fix it anyway?
2. If the bridge did fail due to something that COULD be fixed, is anyone going to make the case that MNDOT was so strapped for cash the $$ couldn’t have been diverted from other projects?
3. Let’s say MNDOT WAS strapped. Is anyone going to make the case that the state was so broke it couldn’t find the money elsewhere? In a budget that increases by 10s of millions every year without fail?
From the mouths of Babes, Ulysses. You patronizing ignoramus.
August 9th, 2007 at 3:51 PM
—Fact is if this state was not set so the rural areas kept the liberal cities alive they would have all gone bankrupt by now and what we would have is abandon liberal cities in need of repair all across the US.—
What a load of crap, where is has the primary growth been in our state the last 20 years? Not rural Minnesota
Where has the primary population growth been the last 20 years? Not rural Minnesota
Rural Minnesota is actually sapping the metro out of it’s fair share of gas tax revenue.
and if you want to talk about poverty you seem to forget “The South” which has primarily Republican domination, but yet high levels of poverty, low levels of education and high levels of crime.
August 9th, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Spoken like a true believing, inner-city, ignorant liberal who takes the bus, rides his bike and lives in his parents basement.
Rural Minnesota is actually sapping the metro out of it’s fair share of gas tax revenue.
Remember that the next time you borrow your dads car to drive to Duluth.
How arrogant.
August 9th, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Trevor what color is the sky in your world?
Yes, it is now the suburbs that keep the inner cities alive here in this state! DO not believe me take a look at state aid to various cities. Guess who sucks up most of the money?
Population has dropped in Mpls and St. Paul and their school scores are in the toilet and teachers are running away from inner city schools so just what are you trying to point out asshat?
Parents are bussing their kids from the inner cities to the suburbs schools because they know if they want a chance for their kid to succeed they best get them out of the uber-liberal cities.
Nice try with the south but once again you are not quite right. Take a good look and much of the poverty in the south are in high population area’s more often than not vote democRat.
I notice you do not even care to mention how the inner sities waste their money first on scoial programs and then worry about basic needs like police, fire, roads and bridges.
Most likely because you know that is true!
August 9th, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Thanks to George for helping to keep MN a dark blue state.
Cheers!
August 10th, 2007 at 7:58 AM
When is someone, anyone going to talk about what special interest group will enjoy the windfall of a statutory gas tax? Have we become so wrapped up in the war of words that no one dares ask who the gas tax money will truly benefit?
How about changing both the gas tax formula and the sales tax formula?
Every penny of gas tax increase will generate $30 million per year. So a dime gets you a gross amount of $300 million. That is split 60% to the state and 40% to counties and local municipalities. We need to get really specific about this and reveal it for what it is for all to see and understand. The geographic disparity is this: where the tax revenue is generated is not where the tax revenue is getting spent.
So instead of a statutory gas tax increase let’s figure out what areas need the most road and bridge funding. Then figure out how that need converst to a gasoline sales tax. Spend that revenue in the geographic area that it is derived from. Oh and by the way before you shove something like this down Minnesota’s throat put it on the ballot and let the people vote on it.
And while we are at it lets either revoke last year’s MVST constitutional amendment or amend it yet again to dedicate all MVST to infrastructure. Transit can have it’s own standalone bills and if the above spend it where you get it philosophy is applied the tab for fiscally unreasonable but socially desireable (by some) transit projects can be picked up by the regions that benefit from them.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Kahuna – I wasn’t saying that the state doesn’t waste money on social programs, that’d be like saying Jeff Fecke doesn’t eat twinkies by the handful. What I was saying is that, for the sake of argument, let’s just separate that problem from the transportation infrastructure problem.
We have enough money from gas taxes, vehicle sales taxes and other user fees to fix the transportation problem without even having to touch the social programs that lefties covet.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:02 AM
[...] Congressman Jim Obserstar, who serves as chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, proposed legislation on Wednesday that would raise the federal gas tax by 5 cents. [...]
August 10th, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Why is it that it needs to be the gas tax that pays for transportation? Why not increase the income tax to fix our bridges (for the moment I’ll assume that is neccisary), why not the sales tax how about we jack up that cigarette tax for roads.
If the gas tax is the best tax then why not roll back other taxes and replace them with more gas tax? It just doesn’t make sense that the gas tax would be the best place to increase revenue and transportation would happen to be the best place to increase spending. Sure once in a rare while that might be the case, but it won’t be the case long term.
Why do politicians have to use dumbed down policy like this?