Tax & Spend

[indago]

REPUBLICANS

From The Associated Press 4 January 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------
The incoming chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee says raising the federal fuel taxes is among the options under consideration to replenish the dwindling Highway Trust Fund. ...The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and the diesel tax is 24.4 cents per gallon.
------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_FUEL_TAXES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-04-10-31-47)

[fj1200]

------------------------------------------------------------
... replenish the dwindling Highway Trust Fund.
------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_FUEL_TAXES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-04-10-31-47)


Sen. John Thune of South Dakota says all options must be looked at to fill an enormous shortfall when the existing highway legislation expires in May.Gas and diesel taxes haven't risen since 1993, resulting in perennial shortfalls in the fund that pays for most road projects.
Several commissions have called for raising the taxes, but Congress has been reluctant. Instead lawmakers have dipped repeatedly into the general treasury to keep the trust fund solvent.

You have a different option for paying for highways?

[Drummond]

Bearing in mind my lack of familiarity with this issue, because of where I come from (!) ... even to me, an alternative to a blanket levying of a fuel tax seems evident.

Why not just raise the costs of crossing toll booth charges ? That way, those not needing to use the road system where toll booths are situated, don't pay out needlessly. If there aren't enough of them around, just add to their numbers.

The idea of blanket-charging taxes, regardless of where and how often you travel, seems particularly Leftie to me in nature. Far fairer to pay taxes on only what you NEED to pay them on.

[tailfins]

You have a different option for paying for highways?

Cut mass transit spending and stop diverting current gas tax revenues to other purposes.

[fj1200]

Cut mass transit spending and stop diverting current gas tax revenues to other purposes.

I could argue that mass transit spending obviates the need for some highway construction but you may have a point. Someone at the Heritage Foundation suggests local control as was originally proposed.


Highway Trust Fund: Questions and AnswersBackground: In 1956, the federal highway program was created to build a coast-to-coast 42,000-mile network of interstate highways to connect all major cities in the country. To pay for this program the government instituted a “user fee” in the form of a federal gas tax. Once the network was completed in the mid-1980s, the highways and the fuel tax were to be handed over to the states to manage. Congress, however, grew accustomed to the influx of revenue and the spending it enabled. The program has since been periodically reauthorized through highway bills, expanding on each occasion, and today, the fuel taxes motorists, truckers, and bus drivers pay are spent on a variety of measures well beyond the scope of roads and bridges, very few of which address the actual problems facing motorists.

...

Is there any opportunity for real reform?
Yes. To take away the need for periodic highway bills completely, Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced a new way forward in theTransportation Empowerment Act (http://tomgraves.house.gov/tea/)(H.R. 3486/S. 1702). This bill would return the highway program to local control, empower local and state governments to carry out projects that best serve their interests, and enhance the efficiency of how money is spent on the nation’s transportation.
The federal fuel tax would be reduced from 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline to 3.7 cents, and from 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel to 5 cents, over a five-year period—limiting the user fee to fund only appropriate federal activities and forcing an end to governmental waste and ineptitude.
States and localities would be free to set whatever transportation policies they deem necessary and pay for projects in a way that works best for them without the costly and cumbersome hurdles imposed by the federal government.
http://heritageaction.com/2014/07/highway-trust-fund-qa/

[indago]

From The National Journal 16 July 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the past, the government has used federal highway funding as a way to leverage states to comply with driving-related laws — establishing a speed limit in Montana, for example — as well as more tangentially related laws. Under the 10th Amendment, powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. But under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can threaten to withhold essential federal funding for highway infrastructure if states do not comply.
-----------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage-20140716)

The people pay these taxes, and the federal government, then, uses them as a tool to force compliance. So, in essence, we are paying for our own enslavement...

[fj1200]

So, in essence, we are paying for our own enslavement...

And here I thought we'd have a happy little chat about the HTF.

[indago]

And here I thought we'd have a happy little chat about the HTF.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

[fj1200]

Bearing in mind my lack of familiarity with this issue, because of where I come from (!) ... even to me, an alternative to a blanket levying of a fuel tax seems evident.

Why not just raise the costs of crossing toll booth charges ? That way, those not needing to use the road system where toll booths are situated, don't pay out needlessly. If there aren't enough of them around, just add to their numbers.

The idea of blanket-charging taxes, regardless of where and how often you travel, seems particularly Leftie to me in nature. Far fairer to pay taxes on only what you NEED to pay them on.

We have precious few toll roads in the US and based on governmental history of tolls being imposed and never rescinded I think we'd be safer not adding to those numbers. I can't imagine any conservative signing on to your idea of adding the bureaucratic monstrosity of new toll booths. Anyway, gas taxes are the epitome of a use tax, nobody needs to pay those taxes if they don't want to and they can control how much they pay based on the efficiency of their car. At this time they can even avoid them altogether by going electric.

[Drummond]

We have precious few toll roads in the US and based on governmental history of tolls being imposed and never rescinded I think we'd be safer not adding to those numbers. I can't imagine any conservative signing on to your idea of adding the bureaucratic monstrosity of new toll booths. Anyway, gas taxes are the epitome of a use tax, nobody needs to pay those taxes if they don't want to and they can control how much they pay based on the efficiency of their car. At this time they can even avoid them altogether by going electric.

Strangely enough - IF you mean what you say - we have a measure of agreement here.

I agree with you that toll roads / toll booths are not a solution any Conservative would welcome. However, in suggesting that alternative before, my thinking was that it might still be better than other taxation alternatives. After all, if people choose not to drive on roads having such booths, they avoid being charged, so have a way of choosing to not pay that form of tax. By contrast, a fuel tax is more of a blunt instrument, which more people would be forced to pay.

As for ..


I can't imagine any conservative signing on to your idea of adding the bureaucratic monstrosity of new toll booths.

... really ? Then check this out ... dating from 2009, before our Conservatives were elected to power in 2010 ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5914437/Motorists-face-paying-tolls-on-new-roads-under-Tory-plans.html


The road tolls are among a range of new taxes David Cameron is being forced to consider as public borrowing is forecast to rise to more than £1trillion.

The Tory leader promised a “national endeavour” to pull the public finances out of the red as he admitted that he “cannot rule out any tax increases” if he wins the next general election.

The first toll booth was introduced under Labour (UK Socialists). However, as you can see from the above quote, the Conservative Party leader, though unhappy about the idea, was perfectly prepared to use toll roads as a tax-raising measure.

After all .. he had to consider how to repair our broken economy, once the Socialists were ousted from power. So he had to consider, and if necessary institute, whatever measures would help .. popular OR NOT.

That, FJ, is something you've never understood about Conservatives. We address REALITY in REAL terms, not with blind dogmatism. We will do what we must, when we must, even if the methodology isn't seen to be ideal.

[indago]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

[fj1200]

Strangely enough - IF you mean what you say - we have a measure of agreement here.

For once, please, could you not be a brain dead moron?


I agree with you that toll roads / toll booths are not a solution any Conservative would welcome. However, in suggesting that alternative before, my thinking was that it might still be better than other taxation alternatives. After all, if people choose not to drive on roads having such booths, they avoid being charged, so have a way of choosing to not pay that form of tax. By contrast, a fuel tax is more of a blunt instrument, which more people would be forced to pay.

A fuel tax is far superior to toll roads and the bureaucratic monstrosity that would come from that. Our Federal gas tax is essentially a user fee for construction and maintenance of the Federal Highway System. States also have their own gas taxes which would be a user fee for their own system of roads. Surely you won't be saying that because someone doesn't drive on a "toll booth road" that one doesn't drive on any roads; surely you can't be saying that right? Also to state that no one benefits from roads whether they drive on them or not would be to completely not understand positive externalities.


As for ..


I can't imagine any conservative signing on to your idea of adding the bureaucratic monstrosity of new toll booths.

... really ? Then check this out ... dating from 2009, before our Conservatives were elected to power in 2010 ..


The road tolls are among a range of new taxes David Cameron is being forced to consider as public borrowing is forecast to rise to more than £1trillion.

The Tory leader promised a “national endeavour” to pull the public finances out of the red as he admitted that he “cannot rule out any tax increases” if he wins the next general election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5914437/Motorists-face-paying-tolls-on-new-roads-under-Tory-plans.html


The first toll booth was introduced under Labour (UK Socialists). However, as you can see from the above quote, the Conservative Party leader, though unhappy about the idea, was perfectly prepared to use toll roads as a tax-raising measure.

After all .. he had to consider how to repair our broken economy, once the Socialists were ousted from power. So he had to consider, and if necessary institute, whatever measures would help .. popular OR NOT.

That, FJ, is something you've never understood about Conservatives. We address REALITY in REAL terms, not with blind dogmatism. We will do what we must, when we must, even if the methodology isn't seen to be ideal.

Did you really not read what I posted? "Adding" a bureaucratic monstrosity is in no way conservative. Yet there you are proposing it.


If there aren't enough of them around, just add to their numbers.

I must admit you do have some strange ideas of "conservative" across the pond but there is a huge difference between raising tolls on something that already exists and your proposal to add a bureaucratic nightmare. At least Cameron seems to understand that his solution isn't conservative in nature.

I also note that his proposal was under his ill-advised austerity program that he subsequently abandoned for some pro-growth policies. I detailed all of that in another thread; you'd be well advised to review that thread. :)

On a related note, do you know what Republicans are called around here that suggest "pragmatic" "tax raising measures"? RINOs.

[fj1200]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

Interesting choice to present. It seems drummond would disagree with his pronouncement and revel in the subsequent "pragmatic" tax increases that the elder Bush signed on to because... you know... "reality":


In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?

But alas:


The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269397/read-my-lips-won-t-happen-again-ryan-ellis

It gave us President Clinton... and more tax increases.

[Drummond]

For once, please, could you not be a brain dead moron?

.... well ... ahem ... I entertained the notion that you might mean what you say !!! On reflection, therefore, I can see that even the mere idea that you MIGHT be genuine in your representation of your views, could be said to earn such a response !! :rolleyes:


A fuel tax is far superior to toll roads and the bureaucratic monstrosity that would come from that. Our Federal gas tax is essentially a user fee for construction and maintenance of the Federal Highway System. States also have their own gas taxes which would be a user fee for their own system of roads. Surely you won't be saying that because someone doesn't drive on a "toll booth road" that one doesn't drive on any roads; surely you can't be saying that right? Also to state that no one benefits from roads whether they drive on them or not would be to completely not understand positive externalities.

Doesn't a fuel tax directly applied, become a less easily avoided tax ? And given that ... I can easily see why a Leftie would much prefer it !

My point was that a fairer tax is one that would be applied to those most needing the services it paid for. Why be lumbered with a tax burden for something you WON'T get value for money from ? It's like our NHS .. you have to pay tax which helps pay for it, whether OR NOT you'll ever need their 'services' ...

[... and immigrants are, of course, highly grateful for those freebies ...]

Rely on toll booths, even a greater number of them, and thoughtful drivers CAN reroute and exercise choice over what the State robs them of. And .. why not ?? It may offend your Leftie sensibilities that people exercise some control over their taxpaying. But I'm afraid that's far more your problem than mine.


Did you really not read what I posted? "Adding" a bureaucratic monstrosity is in no way conservative. Yet there you are proposing it.

And there you are, suggesting yourself to be any form of 'Thatcherite'. If you knew her politics, if you understood her brand of Conservatism, you'd understand that, while she was no fan of 'bureaucracy' or creating 'bureaucratic monstrosities', she WOULD NEVER HESITATE TO GO THAT ROUTE, IF THE END RESULT WARRANTED IT.

Perhaps you just can't grasp this. Margaret Thatcher, now David Cameron .. BOTH CONSERVATIVE PARTY PRIME MINISTERS .. actually WILL use State powers if they see a need to. Neither leader ever ran away from the demands which reality places upon them.


I must admit you do have some strange ideas of "conservative" across the pond but there is a huge difference between raising tolls on something that already exists and your proposal to add a bureaucratic nightmare. At least Cameron seems to understand that his solution isn't conservative in nature.

And yet, HE'LL DO WHAT IS REQUIRED, regardless.

I'd argue, in any case, that it's less 'my' proposal, and more a proposal which I've borrowed from tried and tested Conservative methodology. See above.


I also note that his proposal was under his ill-advised austerity program that he subsequently abandoned for some pro-growth policies. I detailed all of that in another thread; you'd be well advised to review that thread. :)

Ah, yes. I do recall it. That thread where you posted reams of highly delusional rot which amounted to a concerted attack on British Conservative policies ... whilst still ludicrously trying to sell yourself as a 'conservative' .. ???

Just as you attack Conservatives here on a VERY regular basis, so you launched a very strong attack on the British Conservative Party's key economic strategy !! And you're STILL doing it, by saying that their austerity program was 'ill-advised', WHEN IT'S BEEN A RESOUNDING SUCCESS !!


On a related note, do you know what Republicans are called around here that suggest "pragmatic" "tax raising measures"? RINOs.

What do they call Lefties who disreputably claim to be something other than what they are ??

[fj1200]

.... well ... ahem ...

Actually what you tried to do was prattle on about lefties but I threw your ignorance back in your face. FWIW I took the liberty of crossing out your ignorant blather below. I know how you appreciate that it cleans up the thread from your unbelievable ignorance cluttering things up.


Doesn't a fuel tax directly applied, become a less easily avoided tax ? And given that ... I can easily see why a Leftie would much prefer it !

My point was that a fairer tax is one that would be applied to those most needing the services it paid for. Why be lumbered with a tax burden for something you WON'T get value for money from ? It's like our NHS .. you have to pay tax which helps pay for it, whether OR NOT you'll ever need their 'services' ...

[... and immigrants are, of course, highly grateful for those freebies ...]

Rely on toll booths, even a greater number of them, and thoughtful drivers CAN reroute and exercise choice over what the State robs them of. And .. why not ?? It may offend your Leftie sensibilities that people exercise some control over their taxpaying. But I'm afraid that's far more your problem than mine.

Wow, you step in the ignorant bucket and then you jump in with both feet. Here's the thing you idiot everybody who drives drives on roads funded by tax dollars (unless a purely privatized roads and there aren't too many of those around), those tax dollars can be collected in a variety of ways, a use tax is preferable as it covers all roads driven on and it doesn't rely on a huge bureaucratic monstrosity to collect those. For some reason you prefer huge bureaucratic monstrosities and somehow try to claim that it's conservative. You suck at this as you have zero clue about conservative principles.


And there you are, suggesting yourself to be any form of 'Thatcherite'. If you knew her politics, if you understood her brand of Conservatism, you'd understand that, while she was no fan of 'bureaucracy' or creating 'bureaucratic monstrosities', she WOULD NEVER HESITATE TO GO THAT ROUTE, IF THE END RESULT WARRANTED IT.

Perhaps you just can't grasp this. Margaret Thatcher, now David Cameron .. BOTH CONSERVATIVE PARTY PRIME MINISTERS .. actually WILL use State powers if they see a need to. Neither leader ever ran away from the demands which reality places upon them.

And again you're the one defending ever bigger government whereas I'm the one supporting lesser government. Man you dumb. Just because a conservative says something doesn't mean it's a conservative principle. The sooner you understand that the sooner you'll stop being a blithering fool. :)


And yet, HE'LL DO WHAT IS REQUIRED, regardless.

I'd argue, in any case, that it's less 'my' proposal, and more a proposal which I've borrowed from tried and tested Conservative methodology. See above.

:laugh: Bigger government is "tried and tested Conservative methodology." :laugh I don't even have to try anymore to get you to say incredibly stupid things.


Ah, yes. I do recall it. That thread where you posted reams of highly delusional rot which amounted to a concerted attack on British Conservative policies ... whilst still ludicrously trying to sell yourself as a 'conservative' .. ???

Just as you attack Conservatives here on a VERY regular basis, so you launched a very strong attack on the British Conservative Party's key economic strategy !! And you're STILL doing it, by saying that their austerity program was 'ill-advised', WHEN IT'S BEEN A RESOUNDING SUCCESS !!

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't go looking up that thread. I made you look like quite the fool in that one. Austerity in the UK was so successful that they had to keep extending it. :rolleyes: They finally understood that tax cuts were the way to go, as I told you, and then their policies became successful.

You'll also fail again to point out where I "attack" a conservative for making a conservative argument. And before you jump to quickly to your ignorant conclusions... you're not a conservative. You're a big government hack... as you keep telling us.


What do they call Lefties who disreputably claim to be something other than what they are ??

I think in the UK they call themselves "conservative." That seems to be your MO. :shrug:

[Drummond]

Actually what you tried to do was prattle on about lefties but I threw your ignorance back in your face. FWIW I took the liberty of crossing out your ignorant blather below. I know how you appreciate that it cleans up the thread from your unbelievable ignorance cluttering things up.

Translation: you needed to dismiss those points you found it too difficult to meet head-on (and in an arrogant and contemptuous manner).

Censorship is itself typically Leftie. You 'eradicate' what you prefer not to recognise, because reality intrudes unacceptably for you ...


Wow, you step in the ignorant bucket and then you jump in with both feet.

.... and gratuitously disparage, too. Much better, eh, than expose yourself to FAIR DEBATE ...


Here's the thing you idiot everybody who drives drives on roads funded by tax dollars (unless a purely privatized roads and there aren't too many of those around), those tax dollars can be collected in a variety of ways, a use tax is preferable as it covers all roads driven on and it doesn't rely on a huge bureaucratic monstrosity to collect those. For some reason you prefer huge bureaucratic monstrosities and somehow try to claim that it's conservative. You suck at this as you have zero clue about conservative principles.

H'm. A mixture of enthusiasm for taxation, a bit more abuse chucked in, and a continuing fondness for inescapable taxation ?

Such evident Leftieism from you ...

I stand by my own suggestion, since it allows for an extent of individual choice. As a Leftie, you'll be unhappy with that. Well, tough.

And how can you characterise provable CONSERVATIVE policy, as something NOT conservative ?? Surely, a Conservative Prime Minister will have a greater grasp of Conservatism, than would an abusive Leftie whose knowledge of Margaret Thatcher is in many respects pitiful ??


And again you're the one defending ever bigger government whereas I'm the one supporting lesser government. Man you dumb.

More all-encompassing taxation is your idea of minimised Government influence ??


Just because a conservative says something doesn't mean it's a conservative principle. The sooner you understand that the sooner you'll stop being a blithering fool. :)

Ah, got it. I'll remember that during the forthcoming UK electioneering, when I see David Cameron fighting for a LABOUR victory !!!!!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::ro lleyes::cuckoo::cuckoo:


:laugh: Bigger government is "tried and tested Conservative methodology." :laugh I don't even have to try anymore to get you to say incredibly stupid things.

There have been times in British history where, to fix social ills foisted on Society by Leftie scum, only a Big Government solution would suffice. The curbing of Trade Union power is a prime example of its absolute necessity, where 'freedoms' had to be curbed to put a stop to Leftie vandalism. And who introduced the laws responsible ? MARGARET THATCHER.


Yeah, I knew you wouldn't go looking up that thread. I made you look like quite the fool in that one. Austerity in the UK was so successful that they had to keep extending it. :rolleyes: They finally understood that tax cuts were the way to go, as I told you, and then their policies became successful.

Totally delusional. Your arguments were an attack on a successful Conservative policy, argued passionately for by David Cameron, where your own arguments had a lot more in common with Labour's reckless spending weirdness. I tried to convince you, as is only TRUE, that in order to institute any tax cut, the revenue to afford it, to substitute for the loss in tax revenue, had to be available !!

And how do you afford such things when the revenue isn't there for it ???

Let me guess. You'd want the Government to borrow to get it .. yes ? WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF OUR PROBLEMS, UNDER LABOUR !!!!

AUSTERITY was the one and only answer. Something NO LEFTIE could grasp, or argue in favour of as a policy. No, Lefties prefer to arrange poverty, rather than act as though they're living within their means.


You'll also fail again to point out where I "attack" a conservative for making a conservative argument.

BUT I JUST HAVE !!!!! :tinfoil:

Good grief !!

[indago]

Journalist Monica Davey wrote for The New York Times 20 January 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Governor Backs Measure Raising Sales Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/politics/michigan-governor-backs-measure-raising-sales-tax.html?ref=todayspaper)

Well of course he does. It's to be expected. He's a Tax'nSpend Republican.

[fj1200]

:blah:

Enough of your leftie arguments.

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/talk-to-the-left-hand-cause-you-ain-t-right.png

Appropriate on so many levels. :)

[fj1200]

Journalist Monica Davey wrote for The New York Times 20 January 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Governor Backs Measure Raising Sales Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/politics/michigan-governor-backs-measure-raising-sales-tax.html?ref=todayspaper)

Well of course he does. It's to be expected. He's a Tax'nSpend Republican.

Just curious, how would you pay for road maintenance?


Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, on Tuesday night urged Michigan voters to approve a sales tax increase to help pay for what he sees as long-needed repairs to roads and bridges, making him one of a small but growing number of governors to endorse raising taxes.

In his fifth annual State of the State address, Mr. Snyder called for raising the sales tax to 7 percent from 6 percent, supporting a ballot measure that lawmakers have agreed to put before voters in May. It would be part of a larger package aimed at devoting about $1.2 billion more per year to roads and $300 million more a year to schools.

“We have rotten roads and bridges in our state,” Mr. Snyder said. “No one in Michigan likes our roads and bridges. We got that worked on, but our work isn’t done. Now we need to ask our citizens to support that effort in May on the ballot.”

...

[indago]

Just curious, how would you pay for road maintenance?

"Let's pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come." — State Of The Union 2015

Infrastructure could be financed through government wealth redistribution, State and federal.


https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-proposed-discretionary-spending.png


article (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/)


The United States Money Supply should be maintained within the United States, and all dollars outside the US should, by law, be brought back here to be used here.


http://i61.tinypic.com/29l1zzm.gif

[indago]

From The Associated Press 1 February 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama's budget will propose an ambitious six-year, $478 billion public works program of highway, bridge and transit upgrades, half of it financed with a one-time mandatory tax on profits that U.S. companies have amassed overseas, White House officials said.
------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BUDGET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-01-09-03-37)

[fj1200]

"Let's pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come." — State Of The Union 2015

Infrastructure could be financed through government wealth redistribution, State and federal.

article (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/)

The United States Money Supply should be maintained within the United States, and all dollars outside the US should, by law, be brought back here to be used here.

Silly me. Why would I expect an actual answer to the question at hand. Money supply. :laugh:

[indago]

Silly me. Why would I expect an actual answer to the question at hand. Money supply. :laugh:

Yes, silly you! To think that you could even begin to comprehend what is going on just boggles the mind...

[fj1200]

Yes, silly you! To think that you could even begin to comprehend what is going on just boggles the mind...

^ From the guy who gives a non-responsive answer to a question about road maintenance in the great state of Michigan with a quote from the POTUS and a graph about money supply. You slay bro.

[Drummond]

Enough of your leftie arguments.

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/talk-to-the-left-hand-cause-you-ain-t-right.png

Appropriate on so many levels. :)

Ho hum. This is the Left's idea of 'reasoned argument' .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

Ho hum. This is the Left's idea of 'reasoned argument' .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

The left? You're still an idiot which is why I didn't put any effort into refuting your stupid arguments again. Only a moron like you claims that gas taxes are leftie but toll booths are rightie. :facepalm99: I would say that you wouldn't know a leftie argument if it slapped you in the face but your problem is that every argument that slaps you in the face you can only bleat out, "aack leftie."

[indago]

The battle over the Constitutional Amendment to increase the State Sales Tax in Michigan

video (http://www.wxyz.com/news/state/battle-brewing-in-lansing-over-vote-on-sales-tax-increase-to-fix-roads)

Within the Constitution, it remains permanent, a very undesirable result.

[indago]

From WDIV 4 Detroit 20 February 2015:
------------------------------------------------------
State auditors say the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) could do a better job at enforcing the warranties on road construction projects. The report released Friday comes a few months before voters consider a sales tax increase to overhaul Michigan's roads and bridges. The audit says MDOT didn't consistently ensure that contractors made repairs on projects that carried warranties. In some cases, state inspectors found problems but didn't notify the contractor until after the warranty had expired. In other cases, the inspections weren't timely.


The audit says taxpayers can end up paying for fixes if warranties aren't enforced.
------------------------------------------------------


article (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/audit-blames-state-for-not-enforcing-warranties-on-construction-projects/31383232)


And because of this, the roads are in a shambles, and now the governor wants a Constitutional tax increase to cover for this incompetence.


Vote NO on the Constitutional Amendment to raise the State sales tax.

[indago]

Ross Jones reported for WXYZ Channel 7 News Detroit 17 February 2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Senate inched closer today to finalizing a deal that would move senators into bigger, more costly offices. The move, push primarily by Senate Republicans, comes at a time when the state is facing a sizable budget deficit and citizens are being asked to approve a tax hike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article/video (http://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news/investigations/michigan-senate-inches-closer-to-upgrading-offices-moving-into-51-million-building)


So, that's what the new tax hike that the Governor and the Legislature want is for.

[indago]

Journalist David Eggert wrote for The Associated Press 5 May 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan voters on Tuesday resoundingly defeated tax increases that would have pumped $1.2 billion more a year into roads, a setback for Gov. Rick Snyder and others who warn that the state's infrastructure is falling into disrepair because of inadequate funding. ...A 1-cent sales tax hike was the centerpiece of the ballot measure, which also would have raised more money for education, local governments, and public transit and fully restored a tax break for lower-income workers. The constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot in December by the Republican-led Legislature and had backing from the GOP governor, Democrats and a broad coalition of business, labor and government groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROAD_VOTE_MICHIGAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-05-22-33-25)

And that was one of the main complaints about the proposal: it would amend the Michigan Constitution to increase the State sales tax, making it a permanent fixture. If it was a tax increase program for five years or so, and structured just for the infrastructure, it probably would have passed.

It was supported by Tax'nSpend Senator Carl Levin (D), by the Tax'nSpend unions (mostly D), by the Tax'nSpend Governor Snyder (R), by the Tax'nSpend Legislature (Mostly R). The proposal was defeated 80/20.



.