Friday, January 02, 2009

Federal Panel Pushing For Federal Gas Tax Hike

A federal panel is proposing a 10 cents per gallon increase in the federal motor fuels taxes.

It's being proposed in the name of fixing transportation infrastructure, but I have serious doubts over how the money will be divided up. Since it's a federal tax we're talking about, the money isn't going to end up where it's necessarily most needed, but based on other factors to ensure that states with fewer roads or less expensive transportation systems get money, shortchanging states that have extremely dense transportation infrastructure, including those in the Northeast, California, and the Midwest.

It's also a regressive tax that adversely affects lower income drivers. It would also increase transportation costs for truckers and businesses, which is being proposed at a time when the nation is reeling from a serious economic downturn.

Increasing state taxes on a case by case basis could be made, and I could grudgingly accept it if the money was truly dedicated to fulfill transportation projects and not engage in porkbarrel spending or treat the money solely as a jobs program. It's one thing to use the money to rebuild a road that is rated poor and/or obsolete. It's another to propose building grandiose projects that have limited usage.

New Jersey's politicians have been mulling a gas tax increase to replenish the transportation trust fund, and I've generally opposed that because the state has chosen to spend money elsewhere on porkbarrel projects of dubious intent. The state's fiscal situation is such that it refuses to cut spending on nonessential projects or cut state workforce when the ratio of state workers per residents continues to climb as more residents flee to lower tax burden climates. It would force the states to make tough choices - to spend on necessary projects or continue funding obsolete or programs of dubious merit. Raising taxes deprives everyone of money that can be put to better use by the people that actually made the money in the first place.

No comments: