RSSMileage tax may be more fair way to cut gas use, fund projects
Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board
E-mail
Print
Comments
More 'Opinion'
- Wine tourism doesn't stop at the winery
- Duck muck: Oregon football officials sending mixed messages
- Keep eye on business while March Madness prevails
- Overdose immunity bill could cost lives
- Special session? Hasn't Legislature done enough damage?
- State employee raises are on taxpayers' dime
- Court can send clear message on public access to public records
This editorial appears in the Yakima Herald-Republic on Jan. 7, 2009.
With the price of unleaded gas dipping below $1.65 a gallon, it's time to celebrate, right? Not so quickly.
If President-elect Barack Obama wants to cut back on our dependence on foreign oil and make a serious push for fuel-efficient automobiles, something has to give. The days of cheap gas may never return.
Just listen to one of the board members of the National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing.
"We can either let the roads go to hell or we can pay more," said Adrian Moore.
The commission wants to do just that -- make the price of gas go up and, in turn, inject new funds to pay for needed roads, bridges and transit programs. One of the ways to reach these goals is through an increase in the federal gas tax. There's also a proposal to change what is being taxed.
But first the gas tax.
The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993. It now stands at 18.4 cents for a gallon of gas and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel. The commission wants 10 cents added to gas, and diesel to rise from 12 cents to 15 cents a gallon.
Another idea being floated is to devise a variable consumption tax that would never go below $4 or $5 per gallon, fluctuating as oil prices and other costs ebb and flow.
We all know what happened when gas skyrocketed over $4 per gallon earlier. Sales for trucks and gas-guzzling SUVs nose-dived; small cars, especially hybrids, suddenly became the rage. The higher fuel taxes, the commission argues, will dampen the desire to return to the status quo of several years ago when bigger was better.
Higher gas taxes, of course, are nothing new for this state. We already rank No. 8 in the nation with a combined state and local tax rate of 36 cents per gallon. Naturally, California leads the way with about 48 cents.
The timing for an increase in federal taxes, when the nation is battling a recession, is, to be blunt, not good. We can see the benefits that this recent drop in gas prices has had on consumers, giving them a much needed boost in spending cash -- a necessary ingredient for an economic recovery.
What the commission has also proposed is changing how we are taxed -- away from the gas-pump formula and toward the number of miles we drive. This warrants further study. Oregon has looked at this approach, and has even equipped GPS monitoring devices in some 300 vehicles to see how this concept may work in the real world.
Certainly, if we are successful about cutting back on our consumption of gas, the old model of taxing at the pump in order to pay for improvements to our highways and transit programs will no longer be sufficient. In fact, it's not paying the bills right now.
Fairness seems to argue for taxing those who drive the most. It's certainly worth thoughtful consideration -- down the road.
* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Barbara Serrano, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.
The problem with this idea is that the published mileage on cars is based upon an average. If you are a good driver, your own mileage can exceed the published figure by significant amounts. For example, I drive a Jeep and the published mileage is 19 mpg. However, I actually regularly get 21 mpg because of the way I drive. If the current Federal mileage limit for my car is at or near the break point for a higher tax, and it is, I get penalized by a significant percentage (like about 20% higher!).
Report ViolationSo, then, is this "gas tax" proposal supposed to solve some problem, or just give the government more control over our lifestyles? Artificially pushing gasoline over $4/gallon just to keep people from buying larger vehicles?
Why not just begin producing our own oil. The north slope of Alaska (barren wilderness) has enough to supply us for 200 years. There are also several fields in the central states that could supply as much or more. Why aren't we producing our own oil? Why are our leaders forcing us to buy foreign oil when we don't need it? Hmmm...
Elect:
Where exactly are you getting this "200 years" figure? Don't you mean "200 days"? The 2005 USGS Oil and Gas assessment has it at 4 billion barrels of oil. If we just "produce our own oil", and the US consumes around 20 million barrels per day, this works out to about 200 days. Lets just pretend that the oil fairy blesses us and we find triple that amount of oil that we find in the north slope, now we have enough for two years!
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3043/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
Johnny,
Look up the book called "The Energy Non-Crisis" by Lindsey Williams. He was a chaplain on the oil pipline in Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. He recorded what he saw and heard the top exec's from the top oil companies and government officials say. Sorry if I don't accept the sterilized government reports of the availabilities of oil in the various reservoires.
I don't have all of my resources available to me here at work, but rest assured that there is no oil shortage. It is an artificial, intentionally designed shortage. If they tapped all the oil that was available (most of which is cheaper to obtain than to buy from foreigners), they couldn't control us and push us to buy smaller, less useful vehicles...
I'll stick with the recent sterilized govermenment reports rather than a 28 year-old book written by a Baptist preacher that sits alongside all the 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theory books.
Right... or wrong, that's your choice.
I for one choose to go with non-sanitized, common-sense information rather than gov't propaganda.
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?
