Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Bus systems can't be children.

 

Pfft. You liberals. Always wanting the infrastructure to work. Don't
you know that we should sacrifice civilization to the ideology of Ayn
Rand?

 

Uh huh.

http://tinyurl.com/6t3huj

 

Because civilization is defined as using a threat of violence to take
from some people to give to other people while taking a cut.

 

That happened in 2003. The war continues today. You just supported
Graham's point.

 

The reality is that gas taxes have to go up as the price of gas drops.
The driver of an SUV or a Civic uses the same amount of gas and drives
the same distance regardless of the cost of that gas at the pump.

I do like your idea of having the cost of auto registration tied to the
impact a vehicle has on the roads. Heavier vehicles should cost more to
register than lighter vehicles.

 

Which state are you referring to? Most states do have to run a balanced
budget. Its not like the states can go out and print their own currency
like the federal government can.

Most states depend on PROJECTED revenue from various sources in order to
pay for their daily obligations and service bond debt. With the credit
crunch, most (if not all) states and public agencies are finding it
nearly impossible to borrow money for planned capital projects such as
building new highways. States can't control the retail price of gas, so
when the price falls, their revenue from gas taxes falls, but their
obligations to do road maintenance remains the same. As a result, most
states are in a financial bind.

What would you propose states with falling revenues do in order to
budget their money in this economy? Should they close off roads and
bridges that need repairs and tell drivers to use alternate routes until
they have the money to do the repairs? Should they fire cops and
firemen? Close parks. Cut down the hours at DMV stations (meaning longer
wait times for customers)? Tell school children to stay home one extra
day per week? Yes, there are ways in most states to cut spending, but
the cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with the lost revenue.

 

Mass transit passengers don't ride for free ... at least most don't.
Every public transportation system I know of charges money for the
services it provides. And fares have been steadily rising over the
years, more so than the gas tax. As you said, mass transit takes a huge
load off the highway system in most major cities.

 

You can't be serious. I work in North Philadelphia. I have commuted in
Philadelphia during the public transit strikes in 1998 and 2005. Let me
tell you, even in my own car, those public transportation strikes were a
major inconvenience. Parking in Center City was very hard to find; even
more than normal. Traffic congestion increased quite a bit. A guy who
reported to me at work (who didn't own a car) had a major problem
getting to work during the 1998 SEPTA strike even though he only lived a
few miles from our office. Lots of my other colleagues were
significantly inconvenienced during that strike, which lasted 40 days.

When the gas price was around $4 per gallon, public transportation use
spiked in the Philadelphia area. During that time, I noticed a
significant reduction in road traffic when I drove to and from work.
When public transportation use rose, there were fewer cars on the roads,
which means less pollution, less traffic, fewer delays, less wear and
tear on the roads, etc. Funding public transportation is a no-brainer,
its a win-win situation for all concerned, even for people in areas of
the state that don't benefit from public transportation because it means
more money to maintain highways can be spent in their area.

 

And someone in Philadelphia might reasonably ask if the fuel taxes that
guy in Wyoming pays is enough to offset his use of the highways in his
area, or if Wyoming needs federal help to build and maintain highways.

If your friend only drives on weekends, he's foolish to maintain a car
in Manhattan. He's better off joining Zip Car or some other car share
organization, or just renting when he needs to drive. When I lived in
Center City, I got along fine without owning a car, and that was before
the advent of companies like Philly Car Share. I simply rented a car on
those weekends when I needed to drive. I have a dear friend who lives on
Manhattan's Upper East Side and she manages to get along fine without
ever driving, even on weekends.

Even in the suburbs in NJ where I live now, I consider my Prius as much
of a luxury as a necessity. I went for four months, a few years ago
without a car as an experiment. I managed to get along without one, but
there were times when it was a PITA, like when I had to be at work at
5:00am twice. Even though I live in a different state from where my
office is, it takes me a total of 90 minutes to walk to PATCO station,
take the train over the Delaware River, then walk the three miles to my
office. On nice days, I still do that if I wake up early enough.

Not once during my experiment did my lack of a car impede my ability to
do my job. I know my situation is not generalizable, but I suspect there
are a lot of people, even those who live in suburban areas like I do,
who can get by fairly well without a car. I drive to work most days
purely because its more convenient then public transportation, not
because its necessary. Like today when I plan to visit my parents for
dinner after work. To do that via public transportation would add a
total of about three hours onto my travel time, but in my car, I will
spend maybe 40 minutes in total driving to work, then to my parents,
then home again.

I agree. I am a big fan of public transportation, especially in densely
populated areas such as Philly and NYC, but I like the idea of opening
up public transportation routes to private entities. I am not proposing
that government supported public transportation agencies close, only
that their monopoly be whittled down some.

 

It evens out though because those who can use the CTA help pay for the
cost of the roads you use.

 

You never heard of Illinois? We have a county known as Cook (should be
called Crook) where the current County Board preisident keeps spending more
and more and more and probably spends more than many states. He's paying to
keep his family and his father's cronies on the payroll. Won't fire or
retire any of them, never mind that most of them are glorified
chair-warmers.

And Illinois itself would have had a surplus, had both Lyin Ryan and
Governor BlowJob not gone to spending the state's largesse to buy still more
votes and curry more favor with the Outfit and the Unions. Revenues until
last year were way up, but state spending was increasing at over twice the
rate of the revenue increase. Instead of retireing old debt (which Illinois
has from foolish spending in the past.), or putting money away in case of
revenue downturns, Lyin Ryan comes up with Illinois First, and Governor
BlowJob spends money on the IPiss system so he can put his name all over it.
And for some reason, every year I-294 is getting 'resufaced' or 'widened'
for the last 10 years in exactly the same spot, just south of the IBEW union
hall. And a newly built I-355 (just opened November 2007) is getting
'resurfacing' work already. All that is there is 'make work' to keep the
construction unions happy.

If you want to argue about schools, I think they ought to entirely close the
public school system anyway. Instead of an education center, they've become
liberal indoctrination centers. Kids complete high school thouroughly
indoctrinated, but unable to read and write and think for themselves and
with little knowledge of what really made this country great. They know
political correctness and 'They Owes It To Me', and that's about it. I've
seen some of the public screwel system 'graduates'. Part of the reason
we've got so many illegal aliens is they know more than your average public
screwel system graduate. By the time I graduated high school back in the
stone age, it was already obvious what was happening. I had to teach
myself. I could tell that outcomes had already been downshifted over one
grade year from when my father went to the same schools 30 years before.
They still used some of the same textbooks (new revision, of course) as my
Dad had, but he had the same courses a year earlier than I did. In one
case, TWO years earlier. And he was in the 'technical' course, I was in the
'college prep' course.

So public schools are not for the kids. They're only to curry favor with
the NEA. They're indoctrination centers for 'political correctness' but
they're not there to teach the kids anymore.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon.

 

The hell? gasoline taxes for road use are per gallon, not a price
percentage. The sales tax, which doesn't go to road use is a percentage.
At least in every state and county and city I'm familiar with.

So? The SUV is heavier.

But then it's unlimited free extra impact miles after that difference is
made up.

 

replace 'liberal' with 'government'.

I've seen this license plate frame a couple times now:
"Prosperity is my birthright"

This greater depression is going to be all sorts of fun as the
government is used as weapon to destroy what's left of the productive
sector for behalf of the parasite economy. (both the very wealthy that
control the government and those living on government handouts)

they are more like prisons to get kids used to the controlling state.

 

The fares do not cover the cost of the ride and well come to chicago
where blago is taxing millions of people to give those who reached the
age of 65 free rides on the CTA.

 

This makes no sense. The road taxes that a non-driver pays go to the
most local of roads. The same roads the buses they take use. The taxes
paid by a non-driver who lives in wrigleyville do not in any way support
the driving of someone living out in Naperville.

 

And it is. Have you ever tried to register, buy fuel for or own a
large commercial truck? It's a whole lot more expensive than your
average daily driver.

 

It does, and yet it's not used as much as you would think (at least
around here) and there's good reason for it. When I lived in Boston
and worked in Newburyport, it was cheaper and faster for me to drive
to and from work than it was for me to take the train. Going the
other way traffic may eliminate the time difference, but it's still
likely cheaper to be in your car than on the train. If the train
didn't take just over an hour to cover a 35 minute drive the appeal to
pay more would likely be much greater.

 

The point is vehicle owners are taxed in various ways by the federal, state
and is some cases the municipal governments, to help pay the cost of
operating mass transit systems. The largest single portion of the federal
gas tax is going to mass transit rather than the interstate roadways. Why
do we allow the government to do that?

Why should those that use the system NOT be paying their own way, as do
those that choose to use Taxis and limo services, rather than making vehicle
owners pay from them to ride for less?

When I am in Philadelphia or NYC I engage a limo service, rather than
subjecting myself to the
idiosyncrasies of public transit system.

It does, and yet it's not used as much as you would think (at least
around here) and there's good reason for it. When I lived in Boston
and worked in Newburyport, it was cheaper and faster for me to drive
to and from work than it was for me to take the train. Going the
other way traffic may eliminate the time difference, but it's still
likely cheaper to be in your car than on the train. If the train
didn't take just over an hour to cover a 35 minute drive the appeal to
pay more would likely be much greater.

 

That's a valid option. When money's tight, cutting back is
important.

Lay them off, rather.

How is that going to reduce expenditures? They'll have to hire extra
security to keep people out of the closed parks.

Then they might actually have to (horrors) cut the unimportant stuff
that gets the campaign contributions along with the police, fire, and
libraries.