NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7248

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!seismo!skadi!stead
From: [e-mail] (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:17:55 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 84
Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> Scale and responsibility Richard. Directed taxes can and do work when
> those who levy the taxes and those who spend the taxes are closely
> coupled to those taxed and those who use the results of the tax spending.
> The problem with a Federal tax is that it is too decoupled from the
> local people paying it. Georgia is a net donor state when it comes to
> Federal fuel taxes. We collect far more than the Feds send back. And
> what does come back often has unacceptable strings attached. Our state
> tax, on the other hand, seems to be very effectively utilized. I'd
> support raising the State tax by 15 cents a gallon, if the Federal
> bite were reduced a similar amount. We wouldn't need the Federal funds,
> and Federal strings, in that case. In fact, I think that idea should
> be applied more generally with respect to taxes and regulation. The
> Feds can't do anything as cheaply as local people can do for themselves.
> And the Feds aren't responsive to local conditions and requirements.
> Our entire system has gotten out of whack with the Feds claiming the
> lions share of revenues and dribbling it back to localities entwined
> in miles of red tape and restrictions. Local politicians clamor for

I agree with you only in that there is an imbalance in Federal vs. Local
control of taxes.  I do not have the opinion of Federal taxes are wrong.
I think they are essential for the nation - it is why the constitution
was created in the first place.  Certain things must be done at a federal
level, and certain regions of the country will be net payers and others
net "tit-suckers".  Preferably, the government will allow this only
where it truly benefits the nation as a whole.  It is up to us to elect
officials who will do this correctly - any failing is directly due to
voting for the wrong person.

Anyway, I do agree that the federal strings on highway money are
ridiculous.  That's why I've said a number of times that the state/local
share of the federal tax should go directly to the appropriate agency,
and not through Congress.  Some strings are ok - if a state has traffic laws
deliberately designed to trip up out-of-state people so they can give them
lots of tickets - that sort of nonsense needs intervention.  Like
turn-on-red laws.  Every few miles here around DC, when and where and
how you can turn changes.  Only VA (luckily where I live and work)
gets it right - right on red always, left on red from one-way to one-way.
The other jurisdictions just want to give more tickets (another form of
tax - if they make their money that way, why do they need federal dollars?).
Without some uniformity, some states could decide to interchange the colors
on traffic lights, or put up signs in french instead of english.
(I think preventing such nonsense could be accomplished without strings
on tax revenue, however.)

> dollars results in some DC bureaucrats getting more perks while the
> rascals in Congress keep their jobs.

Only if you vote for the wrong guy.  If you personally vote for the right
guy, and no one else does, then you pretty much lose, right?  It is a
democracy afterall.  And I can't vote for your senator or congressman, so
it does no good to try and convince me to switch to your guy - you should
be talking that over with your neighbors.  I think if instead of attacking
me all the time (this particular post was more level-headed, but the past
few I didn't bother to read after the first couple sentences), you read
to see where I'm coming from, you'd see we have similar goals, but disagree
on the means.  I want better roads (whether I use them or not), better
cars, a more competitive automotive industry (note - all of the Detroit
big 3 whole-heartedly support a gas tax, as does H Ross - a pretty good
rebuttal to John's spitting and fuming on my .gov address - if these 4
examples aren't .com, I have no idea what John is talking about), less
nasty pollution (no John, that is not identical to CO2, I'm talking
about car pollution in general), less dependence on other nations, etc.
Most of these are very consistant with conservative goals, and most of
my friends consider me libertarian or arch-conservative (I consider
myself moderate, I just end up on the other side of the liberal position
most of the time).  The gas tax is neither liberal nor conservative,
and only libertarians are pretty consistantly against it, but given their
view that government should run on anyone's money but theirs, I don't
pay much attention to libertarian arguments on taxation - only on regulation.

This discussion has moved far from energy (a discussion of energy policy
and the role a gas tax could have) into the realm of personal invective
(John) and pure politics.  I am not interested in furthering this beyond
this response, so if anyone has further comments for me personally, better
Email them, I will not post any more on this thread unless it deals
specifically with energy.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
[e-mail]