Will the gas tax be the next DC showdown?

posted at 3:25 pm on August 10, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Who’s ready for another endless fight across the aisle in Washington this fall?

In addition to the debt ceiling debate, we recently saw the FAA hit a temporary shutdown after Congress couldn’t agree on extending their marching orders. (They’ll be sending out apologies notes to all of you who got airline tickets for sixty dollars less any day now, I’m sure.) But the fun isn’t over yet, sports fans!

The Hill is reporting that the next target on the radar is the renewal of the highway bill – a behemoth package with hundreds of billions in spending and revenue buried in it. In case you missed that bit of secret code, the “revenue” portion includes the gas tax. You don’t suppose anyone currently serving in the legislative branch would turn that into a bone of contention to gnaw on, do you?

With the chambers far apart on their proposals for a long-term highway bill, and transportation advocates in Washington still reeling from the FAA fight, at least one Democratic aide in the Senate expressed concern that congressional Republicans would attempt to use the gas tax as leverage in the fight over the competing transportation proposals.

“There’s widespread support to maintain the current rate, and there has never been serious objection in the past,” the aide said. “But with [Rep. John] Mica’s [R-Fla.] recent actions on the FAA bill, who knows whether House Republicans will once again compromise jobs and the economy to make a political point?”

Mica is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The bill that authorizes the gas tax to be collected, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) bill, is currently on its seventh short-term extension, which expires Sept. 30.

There are two very important aspects to the highway bill, which – much like it’s kissing cousin, the farm bill – is one of those unwieldy, expensive pieces of business-as-usual which normally sail on through the chambers. On the one hand, the purpose of the legislation falls under an area that even most conservatives agree is part of the federal government’s constitutional mandate: interstate commerce. It’s also a “pocketbook issue” which directly impacts a large number of blue collar jobs.

But on the other hand, we have entered the era of shrinking the government, cutting taxes and examining every penny of spending. If anyone is willing to take the time, there’s probably some substantial savings to be had there.

When the FAA authorization failed, travelers found themselves saving a fair amount of coin on their tickets. So how much would you put in your pocket if the government lost its authority to collect the federal gas tax? Perhaps not quite as much as you might think. The tax is currently 18.5 cents per gallon. The rest of the taxes and fees can be blamed on various state and local functionaries.

So, is this a hill worth dying on for fiscal conservatives? The total amount of spending we’re talking about really isn’t huge compared to things like entitlement programs. The Republicans are talking about a bill that spends $230 billion over six years. The Democrats are countering with a more expensive, shorter term plan costing us $109 billion over two years.

The revenue in question is significant. The current level brings in $100 million a day, and that adds up fast even in Washington terms. This should be a good open question for the commentariat. Do you want to fight this war in September?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yes, yes because gas prices are not high enough!

jawkneemusic on August 10, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Sounds like more ‘around the margins’ bullshinola.

Sure, cutting the tax would be great, but we’d get the endless carping about “infrastructure decay” and roads this and roads that”.

catmman on August 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM

The real question is are any Democrats calling for an increase of the tax?

catmman on August 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Pork is another name for the highway bill. Look around and see all those Recovery Act signs from the stimulus. They denote Pork in your neighborhood. If the GOP won’t cut pork in broad daylight, when will they ever do it?

Cut it where you see it.

richardb on August 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

We have to fight them tooth and nail on every issue involving taxes. They steal our money and piss it away. Time to end that farce.

dogsoldier on August 10, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Well, at least building/repairing roads and bridges is something that few would argue is something the gov’t shouldn’t be doing.

flipflop on August 10, 2011 at 3:32 PM

The real question is are any Democrats calling for an increase of the tax?

catmman on August 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Only one I know of for sure is Obama, but there may be more…

Jazz Shaw on August 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Let the House pass it’s bill and see if the Senate shows up for work.

BKeyser on August 10, 2011 at 3:35 PM

I’d settle for the same rate, with language preventing the funds being diverted to subsidizing buses, light rail, and welfare programs as they are now.

Vashta.Nerada on August 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Actually, I heard they might be going after tax credits. Like the Child tax credit and child daycare credit.

Take away all the taxes and deductions and just give me a lower tax rate.

Oil Can on August 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Vashta.Nerada on August 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Well said.

catmman on August 10, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Sure, cutting the tax would be great, but we’d get the endless carping about “infrastructure decay” and roads this and roads that”.

catmman on August 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM

When the democratics whine about infrastructure, I think mostly they are concerned with greedy union jobs and the dues that come from them.

slickwillie2001 on August 10, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Back during the Golden Age of Obama — roughly 28-30 months ago — Democrats were having no qualms about calling for a 50 cent a gallon jump in the federal gas tax. After the recent kerfuffles, we’ll see if any Dems not it the bluest of Blue seats wants to go out and repeat that call.

jon1979 on August 10, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Do you want to fight this war in September?

Oh yes. I am for line by line scrutiny of everything.

antisocial on August 10, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Stop subsidizing trains and planes.

Cindy Munford on August 10, 2011 at 3:41 PM

So, is this a hill worth dying on for fiscal conservatives?

Of course yes, Jazz Shaw. I’ve learnt to take everything you say nowadays with a pinch of salt and a dash of skepticism – bless your former liberal heart :).

The total amount of spending we’re talking about really isn’t huge compared to things like entitlement programs.

Weren’t we told the same thing during the 2011 CR fight? We were told to conserve our energy and political capital for the big fight on the debt limit increase where we could save “trillions”. How did that work out?

Several months later and a downgrade to AA+ from AAA, haven’t we learnt that there are no LITTLE fights or BIG fights? The Left never rests in their attempt to remake America and bankrupt the rest of us. Why should we?

TheRightMan on August 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Sorry, let me try this again:

So, is this a hill worth dying on for fiscal conservatives?

Of course yes, Jazz Shaw. I’ve learnt to take everything you say nowadays with a pinch of salt and a dash of skepticism – bless your former liberal heart :).

The total amount of spending we’re talking about really isn’t huge compared to things like entitlement programs.

Weren’t we told the same thing during the 2011 CR fight? We were told to conserve our energy and political capital for the big fight on the debt limit increase where we could save “trillions”. How did that work out?

Several months later and a downgrade to AA+ from AAA, haven’t we learnt that there are no LITTLE fights or BIG fights? The Left never rests in their attempt to remake America and bankrupt the rest of us. Why should we?

TheRightMan on August 10, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Our fuel taxes are already hefty enough thank-you-very-much!!

http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

Katfish on August 10, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Its kissing cousin. Not it’s.

angryed on August 10, 2011 at 3:47 PM

We could always use the money we aren’t spending on Ethanol…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 10, 2011 at 3:49 PM

typical,

Dem bill spends 50% more than is taken in in two years.
Rep bill spends 5% more than it takes in the six years

tomg51 on August 10, 2011 at 3:49 PM

So, is this a hill worth dying on for fiscal conservatives?

Fight on every hill for every dime. It’s our money.

Vashta.Nerada on August 10, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I think I’d rather see an independent audit of how these highway tax funds are being spent before deciding whether to cut them or not. The programs funded by these types of taxes are notoriously full of waste and fraud.

AZCoyote on August 10, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I’ll agree to a $0.001 increase just to finally get rid of that damn 9/10s of a cent.

meci on August 10, 2011 at 3:56 PM

The real question is are any Democrats calling for an increase of the tax?

catmman on August 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Only if they want to commit political career suicide!

pilamaye on August 10, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Why is it always a hill to die on, rather than a hill to fight for, is defeat preordained?

Yes this is a hill to fight for, why, because it’s time the right and the GOP picked a damn hill instead of running away hoping to find a better hill somewhere else.

You noodles don’t want to fight then head back to the rear with the baggage train and the cooks.

Bishop on August 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Ready to fight and ready to die, cuz’ the price of gas is, Too. Damn. High

Gatsu on August 10, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Doesn’t matter what the House passes. Harry Reid will just drop it in his desk drawer. If he still has room.

GarandFan on August 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

If we were drilling for our own oil, gas was $0.75/gal, trillions of dollars of “revenue” were flooding federal, state, and local governments because we were selling the excess all over the world…

… this wouldn’t be an issue.

Oh, wait…!

Seven Percent Solution on August 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

So, is this a hill worth dying on for fiscal conservatives?

No, but it’s a useful bargaining chip. Pound on the table a few times like it’s vitally important and then throw it in for something more valuable.

RadClown on August 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

They will probably find some sneaky way to raise fuel taxes such as mandating more ethanol in the fuel. This reduces the amount of energy in a gallon of fuel requiring you to purchase more of it for a given amount of driving.

crosspatch on August 10, 2011 at 4:02 PM

“… the highway bill, which – much like it’s kissing cousin, the farm bill – is one of those unwieldy, expensive pieces of business-as-usual which normally sail on through the chambers.”

“Business-as-usual” is how we ended up in this mess…

… Rewrite the bills to a max of two pages each, cutting all the waste, fraud, and graft.

WE ARE OVER $14 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on August 10, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Renew but exempt projects paid for by the gasoline tax from Prevailing Wage requirments. Let the unions argue their perks versus infrastructure construction projects.

KW64 on August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM

WE ARE OVER $14 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on August 10, 2011 at 4:09 PM

/Shhhhh Don’t ask, don’t tell

Key West Reader on August 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM

We need a commission to look into this.

SouthernGent on August 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Renew but exempt projects paid for by the gasoline tax from Prevailing Wage requirments. Let the unions argue their perks versus infrastructure construction projects.

KW64 on August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Show me a spreadsheet.

Key West Reader on August 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Once again, we are framing the argument over tax hikes instead of spending.

search4truth on August 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM

paid for by the gasoline tax from Prevailing Wage requirments.

KW64 on August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Huh?

Key West Reader on August 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM

All the hills are important and dying isn’t an option

Ditkaca on August 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Renew but exempt projects paid for by the gasoline tax from Prevailing Wage requirments. Let the unions argue their perks versus infrastructure construction projects.

KW64 on August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM

OK, no prollen.

Your teleprompter is broken. We unn unnn unnn derstand.

Key West Reader on August 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Kill this ugly bugger first: California Legislative Analyst’s Office: High-Speed Rail Already 57% Over Budget

That’s one of the projects little Bammie refused to consider cutting, so it would be a nice stick in his eye if Republicans could knock it off.

slickwillie2001 on August 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I think we should close the electric car loophole.

1 gal/day loophole at 0.185$/gal x 365 = 67.5$/yr added income tax

tomg51 on August 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Bishop on August 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM

+ One trillion!

Cindy Munford on August 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM

But on the other hand, we have entered the era of shrinking the government, cutting taxes and examining every penny of spending.

SINCE WHEN?

fossten on August 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM

They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential.
Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.
Only education — together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives — can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.
They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings. My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters of Tottenham, Hackney, Clapham and Birmingham.
Unless or until those who run Britain introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for bestiality which are today entirely lacking, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights, for whom their monstrous excesses were ‘a great fire, man’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html#ixzz1UeyeEWpO

Key West Reader on August 10, 2011 at 4:29 PM

“True science welcomes debate. There’s mutual respect for differing theories. Not so with global climate change. That is a political movement and seems designed to heavily tax carbon-based fuels. It’s going to end in a big taxation scheme.” He lists a whole load of predictions that he says the global warming lobby – from the IPCC to Al Gore – have got wrong.

Lutz is clearly coming at the alternative powertrain area from the standpoint that fossil fuels are being steadily exhausted. “The parc of hybrids and electrics will gradually build and this will largely be as a result of government policy because we in the Western world want to wean ourselves off fossil-fuels, not because of CO2, but because of where the fossil-fuel is located.”

J_Crater on August 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM

But on the other hand, we have entered the era of shrinking the government, cutting taxes and examining every penny of spending.

You must be kidding. It is the era of how do we fool the taxpayers today.

hachiban on August 10, 2011 at 4:31 PM

More fights, please. This is the only way we’re ever going to get interest in big govt spending piqued. We have to make mountains out of every mole hill spending and ‘revenue’ enhancing bill the dems want to pass. So, go for it, Mica.

Kissmygrits on August 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM

paid for by the gasoline tax from Prevailing Wage requirments.

KW64 on August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM
Huh?

Key West Reader on August 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM

My point is that the unions want construction projects for jobs but they also love the prevailing wage rule because it greatly increases their wages over private sector jobs (hosing the taxpayer of course who pays much more than the private sector funded projects cost). Let the Unions decide which is more important, their gravy train prevailing wage or more construction projects when unemployment in the construction industry is 23%.

KW64 on August 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Do you want to fight this war in September?

He!! Yeah. Bring it on. We need to fight every last tax battle that comes our way. If Dems want to confiscate even more of our income, then I at least expect my Republican representatives to force them to stand before the public and say “we want you to pay higher taxes.”

In this particular instance, Republicans have a wining hand. A gas tax is harshly regressive. It will hit middle class moms schlepping the kids around in a minivan much harder than the limousine liberals. And talk about job killing! This tax would put unemployment through the roof.

bitsy on August 10, 2011 at 4:46 PM

When the FAA authorization failed, travelers found themselves saving a fair amount of coin on their tickets.

Except airlines just upped fares to offset the savings and passengers saw no savings.

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Except airlines just upped fares to offset the savings and passengers saw no savings.

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 4:52 PM

They had to … they still have to pay the taxes even though the FAA wasn’t collecting them.

HondaV65 on August 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM

They had to … they still have to pay the taxes even though the FAA wasn’t collecting them.

HondaV65 on August 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM

My point was not that they did anything incorrect, but that no one got a discount like Jazz Shaw claimed.

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM

They should make it an inverse function of the price of gasoline at the pump.

Such that, if pre tax Gas Price is $0.10 per gallon, they collect $1.00 per gallon. As the price of gasoline increases, the government gets less. Say every $0.05 increase in price drives the tax downward by $0.01. So gas prices at $1.10 pre tax would now net the government $0.80 per gallon. If gas prices breach $5.10 per gallon, they would collect nothing.

I would imagine that Obama would be pushing for massive Oil Drilling if this were the case today.

astonerii on August 10, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Gasoline prices vary a lot from state to state, reflecting differences in State gasoline taxes, which should be used to build and improve roads within a state.

Other than bridges across rivers at state boundaries, why do we need Federal road construction anyway? Why not abolish the Federal gasoline tax and let the States do what they want with roads?

Steve Z on August 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Gasoline prices vary a lot from state to state, reflecting differences in State gasoline taxes, which should be used to build and improve roads within a state.

Other than bridges across rivers at state boundaries, why do we need Federal road construction anyway? Why not abolish the Federal gasoline tax and let the States do what they want with roads?

Steve Z on August 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

The Interstate system…

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM

While I would prefer they end the gas tax and sell off the highway system as toll roads, the technology may not quite be there yet. Until then, all I ask is that the Federal gas tax go to just the highways, and nothing else.

Count to 10 on August 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM

I say let’s eliminate ALL taxes which are collected from the states and then doled out to the states.

We don’t need the federal government to serve as a middle-man for highway funds, especially since the feds have proved over time that they run this as a corrupt scam….threatening states with “withholding of highway money” frequently to force their will on non-highway issues.

So as an opening round this September, let’s force a FREEZE on the level of the tax, a prohibition on interference with state governments, and a blanket prohibition against setting conditions for return of highway funds to the states.

landlines on August 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM

wow, silly me, I thought he would raise taxes on rich people only…would that be on top of the 37.5 cent per gallon that our pathetic state (Cali) charges us? how jolly!…yet the idiots in this state continue to vote for these degenerate dems…stupidity should be criminalized in this country…

jimver on August 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

I blame George W. Bush! Gasoline was a paltry $1.85 a gallon when he left office. It’s Bush’s fault AGAIN.

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I blame George W. Bush! Gasoline was a paltry $1.85 a gallon when he left office. It’s Bush’s fault AGAIN.

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM

… Only because the economy crashed and gas prices fell with it.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=72&units=us

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

I blame George W. Bush! Gasoline was a paltry $1.85 a gallon when he left office. It’s Bush’s fault AGAIN.

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM

… Only because the economy crashed and gas prices fell with it.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=72&units=us

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

You chart doesn’t go back far enough to show that’s not true. Gas prices under President George W. Bush bottomed around 90 cents a gallon, and it was under a dollar a gallon for around a year, in Georgia.

slickwillie2001 on August 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM

….And the economy is now “not crashed”?

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Waiting for bold action by the House, followed by caterwalling and stonewalling by the US Senate…

Khun Joe on August 10, 2011 at 7:02 PM

….And the economy is now “not crashed”?

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Not nearly like it was in 2008. We’re not in recession for example.

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 7:08 PM

I hope some responsible Republican members of congress have their staffs combing through the bill to find a few outrageous boondoggels that can be eliminated. They should require that those spending items be eliminted and pass the same tax for the same amount of time as before, which would result in some deficit reduction. While I am all for reduced taxes of all sorts, this does not seem to be the time to push tax reductions; better to focus on real spending reductions.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM

….And the economy is now “not crashed”?

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Not nearly like it was in 2008. We’re not in recession for example.

jonknee on August 10, 2011 at 7:08 PM

If we’re not in recession now we will be in another quarter or two. Fight the bill tooth and nail. The last thing we can afford right now is another pork filled travesty.

eyedoc on August 10, 2011 at 7:37 PM

I blame George W. Bush! Gasoline was a paltry $1.85 a gallon when he left office. It’s Bush’s fault AGAIN.

joe btfsplk on August 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Following Rush’s lead we should compile of list of things Obama inherited. Rush pointed out the AAA rating, and joe points out $1.85/gallon gas.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 10, 2011 at 7:51 PM

I hope some responsible Republican members of congress have their staffs combing through the bill to find a few outrageous boondoggels that can be eliminated. They should require that those spending items be eliminted and pass the same tax for the same amount of time as before, which would result in some deficit reduction. While I am all for reduced taxes of all sorts, this does not seem to be the time to push tax reductions; better to focus on real spending reductions.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM

They will just find some other way to blow the money. Sorry to be cynical, but it’s what they do.

stvnscott on August 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM

“The revenue in question is significant. The current level brings in $100 million a day, and that adds up fast even in Washington terms. This should be a good open question for the commentariat. Do you want to fight this war in September?”

Maybe not a pitched brawl, but a small skirmish might do. Not maybe to actually to take on thge tax, buit as a teachable moment for the public at large. To take some of the wind outta the sails of the dhimmi rhetoric about the BIG, EVIL OIL CO’ and their obscene profits.

For instance, for every 1 cent of profit the oil companies take in on a gallon of gas, Federal-State-County-Municipal govt’s collect 4 cents in taxes! That does not include revenues from the leases themselves which is additional taken straight from the consumers pocket.

If the oil Co’s are obscence for inventing and using new techs to discover, extract, refine and bring to market from all corners of the globe, what pray tell charaterizes the vileness of taking 4x’s as much for doing NOTHING?

Archimedes on August 10, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Is this worth fighting? Absolutely! Look what you are saying, It’s the Republican’s wanting to spend $230 billion over six years or $38.3B per year vs. the Democrats $109 billion over two years or $54.5B per year. That means in 6 years, the Dems will have spent $327B vs. the $230B the Republicans are proposing. That’s a 42% difference. Heck yeah! The big numbers are the sum of all the small numbers. Let’s stop rolling over on the small numbers or any numbers.

AZfederalist on August 10, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Tax and spend Democrats should be made to wear the label. Engage the debate vigorously.

exdeadhead on August 10, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Allow them to increase the tax on the gasoline. The lower the price the higher the tax, 3 cent decrease for a 1 cent tax.

{^_-}

herself on August 11, 2011 at 5:50 AM

I’m not against raising the gas tax. But at the same time, let’s remove the administration’s roadblocks to oil production in the US.

As long as the funds actually go to road maintenance & repair, I’m good with that.

taznar on August 11, 2011 at 11:10 AM

“The revenue in question is significant. The current level brings in $100 million a day, and that adds up fast even in Washington terms. This should be a good open question for the commentariat. Do you want to fight this war in September?”

Maybe not a pitched brawl, but a small skirmish might do. Not maybe to actually to take on thge tax, buit as a teachable moment for the public at large. To take some of the wind outta the sails of the dhimmi rhetoric about the BIG, EVIL OIL CO’ and their obscene profits.

For instance, for every 1 cent of profit the oil companies take in on a gallon of gas, Federal-State-County-Municipal govt’s collect 4 cents in taxes! That does not include revenues from the leases themselves which is additional taken straight from the consumers pocket.

If the oil Co’s are obscence for inventing and using new techs to discover, extract, refine and bring to market from all corners of the globe, what pray tell charaterizes the vileness of taking 4x’s as much for doing NOTHING?

Archimedes on August 10, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Doing nothing? Gas wouldn’t be useful without any roads to drive on. Gas taxes are one of the few that make complete sense–the biggest users are the biggest payers.

jonknee on August 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM