Less Driving = 'Bad News' of Lower Gas Tax Receipts

[red states rule]

How typical of the liberal media. With gas prices over $4/gal people are driving less

You would think libs wiould be happy. However, now they are upset with a decline in gas taxes

Yep, they do n ot care we are paying more for gas, but sad over the government is getting less of our money


NBC: Less Driving = 'Bad News' of Lower Gas Tax Receipts

As anyone aware of the concept of supply and demand could have foreseen, Americans are driving less now that gasoline prices have passed $4.00 per gallon. So on this morning’s Today show, NBC’s Tom Costello dutifully noted that Americans have driven 20 billion fewer miles so far this year, but then declared a “bad news” side effect of drivers buying less gasoline:

“We use federal tax money that comes from gasoline sales to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges. We’re looking at a billion-plus-dollar short fall right now, and the National Governors Association wants Congress to come in and fill the gap.”

I guess “filling the gap” could either mean hiking the tax on gasoline, or supplementing the highway fund with other tax dollars. Maybe the real “bad news” for consumers is that some politicians seem determined to collect all of the gasoline taxes they desire, whether drivers actually buy the gas or not.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/06/20/nbc-less-driving-bad-news-lower-gas-tax-receipts

[Kathianne]

How typical of the liberal media. With gas prices over $4/gal people are driving less

You would think libs wiould be happy. However, now they are upset with a decline in gas taxes

Yep, they do n ot care we are paying more for gas, but sad over the government is getting less of our money


NBC: Less Driving = 'Bad News' of Lower Gas Tax Receipts

As anyone aware of the concept of supply and demand could have foreseen, Americans are driving less now that gasoline prices have passed $4.00 per gallon. So on this morning’s Today show, NBC’s Tom Costello dutifully noted that Americans have driven 20 billion fewer miles so far this year, but then declared a “bad news” side effect of drivers buying less gasoline:

“We use federal tax money that comes from gasoline sales to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges. We’re looking at a billion-plus-dollar short fall right now, and the National Governors Association wants Congress to come in and fill the gap.”

I guess “filling the gap” could either mean hiking the tax on gasoline, or supplementing the highway fund with other tax dollars. Maybe the real “bad news” for consumers is that some politicians seem determined to collect all of the gasoline taxes they desire, whether drivers actually buy the gas or not.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/06/20/nbc-less-driving-bad-news-lower-gas-tax-receipts

I think it's true, demand is falling, fast. I've gotten very good at combining trips to stores. My kids have rediscovered walking. A few days ago I went to my audiologist for a tune up on the hearing aids. During the course of conversation, gas prices came up. He said he'd been planning a get away to Upper Minnesota for the 4th, decided to cancel with his friends, gas was just too high to waste. Instead heading downtown Chicago and staying in hotel, it would be cheaper.

I'm considering trading in my Mazda 6 for Mazda 3. For the past 10 days I've been driving one from the dealer, while my car was being repaired. Mine gets 17/25, the Mazda 3 gets 24/32. Most of my miles are highway. It's a tad smaller, but I don't need much room, the kids all have their own cars.

[red states rule]

I think it's true, demand is falling, fast. I've gotten very good at combining trips to stores. My kids have rediscovered walking. A few days ago I went to my audiologist for a tune up on the hearing aids. During the course of conversation, gas prices came up. He said he'd been planning a get away to Upper Minnesota for the 4th, decided to cancel with his friends, gas was just too high to waste. Instead heading downtown Chicago and staying in hotel, it would be cheaper.

I'm considering trading in my Mazda 6 for Mazda 3. For the past 10 days I've been driving one from the dealer, while my car was being repaired. Mine gets 17/25, the Mazda 3 gets 24/32. Most of my miles are highway. It's a tad smaller, but I don't need much room, the kids all have their own cars.

Yes, demand is falling

But instead of being happy libs are pissed over declingin gas tax revenues. Do you think Dems will push for a gas tax increase to make up for the shortfall?

I have to drive 65 miles one way to work. My Toyota Echo gets about 40 mpg.

[5stringJeff]

This is great news. Fewer revenues for state and local governments mean smaller state and local governments.

[Yurt]

This is great news. Fewer revenues for state and local governments mean smaller state and local governments.

i wish that were true, but you know they will simply create new taxes or raise existing ones to fill their coffers with our money

[glockmail]

This is great news. Fewer revenues for state and local governments mean smaller state and local governments. No, it means that they will be raising tax rates.

[red states rule]

This is great news. Fewer revenues for state and local governments mean smaller state and local governments.

Say hi to Toto for me as you travel down the Yellow Brick Road

Government NEVER goes without

Government will NEVER accept less tax revenues

They will raise our taxes elsewhere to cover the loss

Dems scream how the government can't "afford" tax cuts - but they never ask us if we can aford their tax increases

[glockmail]

Say hi to Toto for me as you travel down the Yellow Brick Road

Government NEVER goes without

Government will NEVER accept less tax revenues

They will raise our taxes elsewhere to cover the loss

Dems scream how the government can't "afford" tax cuts - but they never ask us if we can aford their tax increases
When I lived in Upstate NY, not far from where Jeffie here goes to school, our home values were assessed on a four year schedule. During the off years my little Town would increase real estate rates to make revenue keep up with inflation. In re-valuation years property values would rise and they would keep the rates the same, hence increasing revenues usually well beyond inflation for that year. When I confronted the Town Council with this fact they told me that they weren’t raising taxes- they lied and denied.

[red states rule]

When I lived in Upstate NY, not far from where Jeffie here goes to school, our home values were assessed on a four year schedule. During the off years my little Town would increase real estate rates to make revenue keep up with inflation. In re-valuation years property values would rise and they would keep the rates the same, hence increasing revenues usually well beyond inflation for that year. When I confronted the Town Council with this fact they told me that they weren’t raising taxes- they lied and denied.

What is the difference between a taxidermist and tax collector?

The taxidermist takes only your skin

[Trigg]

The MSM needs to pick a side and stay there.

Gore and Obama are getting good press while telling people to stop driving their SUV's and wasting gas.

The next day we're being told how bad it is that people are driving less.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[red states rule]

The MSM needs to pick a side and stay there.

Gore and Obama are getting good press while telling people to stop driving their SUV's and wasting gas.

The next day we're being told how bad it is that people are driving less.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As soon as the Dems raise the gas tax to make up for the lost tax revenue, the liberal media will find something else to whine about

Liike the outrage the voters will express over the tax increase

[Trigg]

As soon as the Dems raise the gas tax to make up for the lost tax revenue, the liberal media will find something else to whine about

Liike the outrage the voters will express over the tax increase

As long as it's the dems doing the tax raising the MSM will keep mum about any outrage at the pump.

[red states rule]

As long as it's the dems doing the tax raising the MSM will keep mum about any outrage at the pump.

No, they will "report" how cheap and greedy people do not want to pay their fair share to keep the roads in pristine condition

[gabosaurus]

No, they will "report" how cheap and greedy people do not want to pay their fair share to keep the roads in pristine condition

Clueless. Absolutely, completely clueless.
Not everyone lives in a backwoods shack accessed by a dirt road.
And why do you have to drive 65 miles to work? Isn't there a car wash closer to your home?

[red states rule]

Clueless. Absolutely, completely clueless.
Not everyone lives in a backwoods shack accessed by a dirt road.
And why do you have to drive 65 miles to work? Isn't there a car wash closer to your home?

Do you ever try to have a civil conversation Gabby, or are you so full of hate you only know how to attack?

You really do have a problem with liberals having their double standards exposed to the light of day

[KitchenKitten99]

No, they will "report" how cheap and greedy people do not want to pay their fair share to keep the roads in pristine condition

That's if the money actually goes to roads and not mass transit, which is the biggest money pit because of subsidies. Never mind that it is a proven fact that more lane-miles of highway work better to ease congestion and are a better investment dollar for dollar than mass transit.

[namvet]

the 09 models. at a dealer near you soon !!!!

http://bc.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/BDX/BDX272/bxp46958.jpg

[red states rule]

Now you want to bring the PETA nuts into the discussion?

[namvet]

Now you want to bring the PETA nuts into the discussion?

no. the horse and buggy. the next advancement in transportation.

[red states rule]

no. the horse and buggy. the next advancement in transportation.

The way Dems are taking on the energy problem, we will have great roads - but nobody will be able to afford to drive on them

[namvet]

The way Dems are taking on the energy problem, we will have great roads - but nobody will be able to afford to drive on them

tip. invest in hay. it will skyrocket :laugh2:

[Trigg]

Clueless. Absolutely, completely clueless.
Not everyone lives in a backwoods shack accessed by a dirt road.
And why do you have to drive 65 miles to work? Isn't there a car wash closer to your home?

Why do you feel the need to insult people instead of contributing to the thread?????

[Monkeybone]

Clueless. Absolutely, completely clueless.
Not everyone lives in a backwoods shack accessed by a dirt road.
And why do you have to drive 65 miles to work? Isn't there a car wash closer to your home?


Why do you feel the need to insult people instead of contributing to the thread?????

it's called "i really don't have anything to say against it"

[red states rule]

Another liberal calls for an increase in the Federal gas tax. Libs believe we are all a renewable money source


NYT Columnist Calls for $1 a Gallon Gas Tax On 'Today'
By Geoffrey Dickens | June 24, 2008 - 13:13 ET

NBC's "Today" show handed "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman a platform, on Tuesday's show, to rail against President Bush's "incoherent mess" of an energy policy, and demand a $1/gallon gas tax, as well as a $4.50 price floor on gas.

"Today" co-host Meredith Vieira spurred on Friedman as she recited the most inflammatory passages from his Sunday column:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Well in this column on Sunday, you don't hold back. You refer to the President as our "addict-in-chief." You say his energy plan is, "Get more addicted to oil." You go on to say, "It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is." What is it, Tom that, you find so offensive in his energy plan?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: What is his energy plan? Let's remember, Meredith, that on the morning of 9/12, right after 9/11, gasoline in this country was $1.60 a gallon, between $1.60 and $1.80. A lot of people like myself, at the time, said we need to have a gasoline tax, a $1.00 gallon phased in over a year, year-and-a-half that will stimulate the kind of innovation and investment in alternatives so we won't be dependent on people who have drawn a bull's eye on our back. What did the President do? He told us to go shopping. So, we basically have an energy policy that Gal Luft has described, I think very accurately as the "sum of all lobbies." The ethanol lobby is strong, let's do a little ethanol! The coal lobby is strong, don't want to have a carbon tax. So it's actually a complete, incoherent mess. That has resulted where we are.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/06/24/nyt-columnist-calls-1-gallon-gas-tax-today

[actsnoblemartin]

let the horsies run free, infact give them reparations


Now you want to bring the PETA nuts into the discussion?

[red states rule]

let the horsies run free, infact give them reparations

We have enough horse shit with Obama and the Dems on the campaign trail

[actsnoblemartin]

and illegals eat free

liberalism is a mental disorder


Another liberal calls for an increase in the Federal gas tax. Libs believe we are all a renewable money source


NYT Columnist Calls for $1 a Gallon Gas Tax On 'Today'
By Geoffrey Dickens | June 24, 2008 - 13:13 ET

NBC's "Today" show handed "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman a platform, on Tuesday's show, to rail against President Bush's "incoherent mess" of an energy policy, and demand a $1/gallon gas tax, as well as a $4.50 price floor on gas.

"Today" co-host Meredith Vieira spurred on Friedman as she recited the most inflammatory passages from his Sunday column:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Well in this column on Sunday, you don't hold back. You refer to the President as our "addict-in-chief." You say his energy plan is, "Get more addicted to oil." You go on to say, "It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is." What is it, Tom that, you find so offensive in his energy plan?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: What is his energy plan? Let's remember, Meredith, that on the morning of 9/12, right after 9/11, gasoline in this country was $1.60 a gallon, between $1.60 and $1.80. A lot of people like myself, at the time, said we need to have a gasoline tax, a $1.00 gallon phased in over a year, year-and-a-half that will stimulate the kind of innovation and investment in alternatives so we won't be dependent on people who have drawn a bull's eye on our back. What did the President do? He told us to go shopping. So, we basically have an energy policy that Gal Luft has described, I think very accurately as the "sum of all lobbies." The ethanol lobby is strong, let's do a little ethanol! The coal lobby is strong, don't want to have a carbon tax. So it's actually a complete, incoherent mess. That has resulted where we are.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/06/24/nyt-columnist-calls-1-gallon-gas-tax-today

[actsnoblemartin]

We have enough horse shit with Obama and the Dems on the campaign trail

i just cant stand this elitism of we'll help keep you poor, take your money, tax you to death, pretend to care about you, and name called your opponent

[red states rule]

Big oil is not the problem folks. Someone please tell Sen Obama


Big Oil isn't the big problem
Government efforts to go after the producers won't get us anywhere.

By Jacob Heilbrunn
June 24, 2008

Here we go again. Soaring oil prices have sent Washington politicians into overdrive to come up with a variety of legislative plans that aim to lower the cost of energy by targeting oil companies. Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, for example, has declared: "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills." It may sound good in theory, but if history is any guide, this is a pipe dream. The real danger isn't that Congress will do too little, but too much.

The recent past suggests that, in fact, efforts to influence the supply of energy can actually boomerang, driving up prices and consumption. Rather than demonize Big Oil, lawmakers should focus on tamping down demand.

Washington's record when it comes to forcing oil prices down by trying to manipulate the supply of energy is dismal. In August 1971, the Nixon administration, mired in an expensive war in Vietnam, worried about the state of the dollar and fearful of rising inflation, introduced wage and price controls for a period of 90 days, which turned into several years. President Nixon scrapped most of the controls in 1974 (they weren't working generally), but because government needed some sort of response to increased oil prices, he kept the provisions relating to energy. Under the scheme, there were limits on the price and therefore the profits on oil produced domestically. At the same time, however, there were no such limits on imported oil. Oil companies could make more money importing oil than producing it at home.

The result was predictable: The United States became more, not less, dependent on Arab oil-producing countries. As Americans lined up at gas stations and shortages occurred, the price of fuel soared. President Ford floundered. Not until Jimmy Carter became president were price controls mostly lifted in 1980, with President Reagan finishing the job in 1981. As part of a bargain with Congress, however, Carter supported a windfall profit tax on domestically produced crude. It meant substituting one bad idea for another.

Once again, a measure intended to help low-income Americans simply meant that the country became even more reliant on imported crude. Domestic production sank in the 1980s, and the tax never brought in much revenue to federal coffers. Reagan finally killed it in 1988.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-heilbrunn24-2008jun24,0,2588214.story

[5stringJeff]

i wish that were true, but you know they will simply create new taxes or raise existing ones to fill their coffers with our money


No, it means that they will be raising tax rates.


Say hi to Toto for me as you travel down the Yellow Brick Road

Government NEVER goes without

Government will NEVER accept less tax revenues

They will raise our taxes elsewhere to cover the loss

Dems scream how the government can't "afford" tax cuts - but they never ask us if we can aford their tax increases

The difference with state and local governments is that these governments are closer to the people they serve, and so tax hikes should not be as easy to pass. There is no such accountability with the federal government at present. Not to mention, most (48?) states require a balanced budget, unlike the federal government, and states can't just print more money when they need it, as the federal government can and does. So, at the very least, state and local governments will "have the debate" about raising taxes.

One more thing: if fewer miles are being driven on roads, shouldn't there be less of a need to repair roads?

[red states rule]

The difference with state and local governments is that these governments are closer to the people they serve, and so tax hikes should not be as easy to pass. There is no such accountability with the federal government at present. Not to mention, most (48?) states require a balanced budget, unlike the federal government, and states can't just print more money when they need it, as the federal government can and does. So, at the very least, state and local governments will "have the debate" about raising taxes.

One more thing: if fewer miles are being driven on roads, shouldn't there be less of a need to repair roads?

Federal, state, and local governments look at taxes as a zero sum game. Even if they do not need the money, they will continue to want more and more from us. If we do what we are told and conserve, we get screwed due to a fall in taxes collected