http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/790723.html
Well people are driving less and using more fuel efficient cars and as a result we're using less fuel. YEAHHHHHH!!!!!
Opps not so fast folks. Remember the phrase "Law of unintended consequences"? Well the car haters and anti-oil folks are getting their way and people are driving less but, as a result the taxes that go toward funding the roads(HA! yea right) is falling short on a daily basis and there is a very real possibility of there not being enough money to fund roads.
NEVER FEAR CONGRESS IS HERE!!!!!! Yes yet again their solution to this problem. MORE TAXES!!!!!! "A bipartisan congressional committee recommends a 25-cent to 40-cent gas-tax increase, phased in over five years." Yes they want to raise the taxes on what fuel is being used to increase the amount of money going towards roads(HA!). I guess when they do that and people drive even less they'll just raise taxes again
"The federal government has a habit of pledging money for projects, then taking it back. In two years, $924 million in highway funds pledged to Texas has been rescinded, Lippincott said."
Dwindling gas-tax revenues could cost Texas another $400 million, officials said."
Well I guess we'll be back on horses soon. Well at least till they figure out the "oat tax" and then tax us back to walking.
If it isn't one thing it's another. I can't wait for the aliens to abduct me. This ride is starting to suck worse than a black hole.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
Of course, the Dems will support an increase in gas taxes because they want $10 gas to please the environmental lobby. If the Dems get 60 votes in the Senate in November, we will have happy environmentalists and a wrecked economy.
Of course, we could keep reps in congress and continue the downward slide we've been experiencing. Your logic is a bit misleading. 1. If gas goes to $10, we will be driving electric or hydrogen cars before long. And yes, environmentalists will be happy about that. So will the military, because they will no longer be used as a security service to "protect" oil supplies in the mideast. Also, if the dems get 60 seats, reps won't be able to filibuster tax incentives for renewables. Folks, like Boone Pickens, then can proceed in earnest building wind farms in the middle third of the country, creating new industries, local industries and jobs that cannot be "outsourced". But the real fallacy in your "logic" comes from the assumption that the environment and the economy are polar opposites. They are not. That logic is responsible for the economic wreckage we are currently experiencing. Here..., check out Wal-Mart's ideas about this. The retail giant has been saving $Millions through integrating sustainable practices into its way of doing business
Of course, we can continue to transfer $700 billion of our wealth to foreign governments. Just keep those reps in office, protecting the multinational oil companies.
"or do you just think more collapsing bridges aren't a problem?" What an stupid statement Ron. I can't believe that you wait, maybe you do think that me and others like me who think the government wastes too much of our money really don't care about anyone else.
No, not me. I spelled out my objections to your article, and I stand by them.
It's the wingnut mantra. Never cut DEBT spending for enriching the corporate masters....ALWAYS gut social spending that actually BENEFITS society.