Link: Bush Opposes Raising Gas Tax for Bridge Repairs
"President Bush said today that he would be opposed to any steps by Congress to increasing the gasoline tax to raise revenues for national bridge repairs in the wake of last week’s bridge collapse in Minneapolis. ‘Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities,’ Mr. Bush said."
Earth to meathead: Astoundingly, people perishing in floods, bridge collapses, etc., affects economic growth.
Cars, trucks, trains and other heavy equipment that were part of the national economy also perished in the bridge collapse, too. If that helps you any.
Listen, asshole, howsabout they actually spend the money they currently raise from that tax on the roads and bridges first, yeah? I don’t live in that state.
Not really wanting to start anything this morning but when you blog about politics you’re really just asking for it aren’t you? :)
In any case, yes people dying and trucks being destroyed affect our economy however the answer is not to continue to spend our current gas tax revenue on everything from wars to paying some guy who can’t get any other job to weld some butt-ugly sculpture in some city park (generic description of earmarks). We (the govt) collect plenty of money through gas tax to handle our roads and bridges if we would just spend it for that.
Its the democrats who never want to spend our current collections more wisely. They just want to collect more. No thanks.
Hey, I don’t like pork barrel spending no matter who does it. And I agree that Bush has been just as bad (if not worse) than many others. I’m not saying that Reps would do it better. Just saying that raising taxes (the only solution Dems know about) is not the answer.
Repairing bridges (and levees) is the function of government but not always the federal government. Dems want almost all power centralized in federal government whereas most of these functions would be handled better and should be handled by state and local government.
Trust me. You don’t want to test me on my political memory. I remember when we ran a budget surplus. And if we would just mothball our entire military we could save even more money!!
I agree that repairing an interstate highway is federal. If you’ll reread my post you’ll see that I said that it is not always the job of the federal government. Today, so many states and cities have levees and other infrastructure that they could fix and pay for themselves but way too many people seem to think that the federal govt should take care of it all. This, of course, leads to more federal govt control and higher taxes.
My entire point was that no matter who is in the white house, when something happens and it appears that we need money a good Rep (and I don’t consider Bush one) will ask where we can get the money from the existing tax base. A Dem will just want more taxes (and just for the “rich”). Got to spread that wealth around now. ;)
As long as billions are going to fund a war that we apparently have no intention of winning, as long as I continue to stand in line at the grocery behind people who use food stamps to buy milk and oj and then throw down a $20 to buy cigarettes, as long as I keep hearing about millions and millions going to all sorts of stupid government earmarks don’t come talking to me about raising my taxes.
The money is there. We just don’t have a government with enough backbone to take it.
Sheesh Jeffrey.
I got better things to do than keep this up. You want government to take care of you every step of the way then vote for Hillary or Obama. They may even come over and read you a bedtime story. :)
[Reggie moves off to do something useful]
Nobody wants to go plunging into a river. But we don’t need higher gas taxes to take care of these bridges. What % of our current gas taxes go to highways and bridges? Maybe we should know that number before we start talking about adding more taxes. If that number is near or at 100% then I’ll sign on for the added gas tax.
Well, I have seen reports that challenge that figure.
And remember the vast majority of the bridges that were included in the recent report of under maintained bridges where state and local ones. Have you checked your state and written your state rep about those or is it just too much fun Bush-bashing?
I checked my state and county. My county only had two on the list and none near me.
These little quips are getting old.
Of course I drive outside my county but since the other counties are in my state, then my state will (or should take care of those bridges). The same goes for neighboring states. Assuming they are not federal bridges and thankfully most of them are not.
Clearly it’s all the Democrats’ fault. The Republicans always spend our money wisely, right? Like the $330M Gravina Island Bridge in Alaska, championed by senator Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens? I’m sure that the ninety people on that island were really having a rough time with that seven-minute ferry ride. Give me a break.
Repairing bridges (and levees, for that matter) with known design flaws isn’t pork-barrel spending, it’s a basic function of government and has been for thousands of years.
Bush has racked up up a trillion dollar deficit at the moment while our infrastructure at home is crumbling. I know that Republicans are okay with plunging the country into bankruptcy while ignoring the basics, but sorry, I’m not too cool with that.
You have a short memory, my friend. Remember back in the days when the U.S. government ran a budget surplus? Remember who was in the White House then?
Repairing a bridge that is a part of the interstate highway system (a system championed by another Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower) is absolutely the responsibility of the federal government.
Maybe you’d prefer that all highway bridges be privatized so we’d have to pay eight bucks every time we cross a bridge? That would do wonders for the economy.
The levees in New Orleans were built by the federal government. Why should the city or the state of Louisiana be required to spend their money to repair them? (Particularly since many states benefit from the Port of New Orleans not being under eight feet of water.)
If you don’t want to raise taxes to pay for this stuff, where do you think the money should come from? Borrowing (the traditional republican tactic) is not the right answer. Economically, borrowing is exactly the same as a tax increase.
So you’d cut back food stamps to pay for repairing bridges? Nice.
Hey, I never said I wanted to be taken care of every step of the way, I just don’t want my family to go plunging into a river when we drive across a bridge. Surely that’s not too much to ask.
How about if Bush ends the war and uses the money saved to repair bridges and other infrastructure? Then we wouldn’t need an increase in the gas tax.
See! Consensus. Win-win. Group hug.
That’s an easy one: 85% of the federal gas tax pays for highways (mostly new highways), and the rest pays for federal mass transportation. None of that revenue pays for food stamp recipients to purchase cigarettes, as far as I know.
So you never drive outside of your county? Do you depend on goods and services that originate from outside your county?
Don’t tell me how to write on my blog, champ.