Congress Urged To Raise Gas Tax

WASHINGTON — Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren't raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.

A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.

The 15-member National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is the second group in a year to call for increasing the current 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel. State fuel taxes vary from state to state.

In a report expected in late January, members of the infrastructure financing commission say they will urge Congress to raise the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon and the diesel tax by about 12 cents to 15 cents a gallon. At the same time, the commission will recommend tying the fuel tax rates to inflation.

The commission will also recommend that states raise their fuel taxes and make greater use of toll roads and fees for rush-hour driving.

Although the cost of gasoline has dropped dramatically in recent months, such tax increases could be politically treacherous for Democratic leaders in Congress. A gas tax hike was one of the reasons they lost control of the House and Senate in the 1994 elections. President-elect Barack Obama has expressed concern about raising fuel taxes in the current economic climate.

But commission members said the government must find more road and bridge building money somewhere.

Story continues below

advertisement

"I'm not excited about a gas tax increase, but the reality is our current gas tax doesn't pay for upkeep of the system we have now," said Adrian Moore, vice president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank in Los Angeles, and a member of the highway revenue commission. "We can either let the roads go to hell or we can pay more."

The dilemma for Congress is that highway and transit programs are dependent for revenue on fuel taxes that are not sustainable. Many Americans are driving less and switching to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and a shift to new fuels and technologies like plug-in hybrid electric cars will further erode gasoline sales.

According to a draft of the financing commission's recommendations, the nation needs to move to a new system that taxes motorists according to how much they use roads. While details have not been worked out, such a system would mean equipping every car and truck with a device that uses global positioning satellites and transponders to record how many miles the vehicle has been driven, and perhaps the type of roads and time of day.

"Most if not all of the commissioners have a strong belief and commitment that we need a fundamental transformation of the current system," said commission chairman Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy think tank in Washington.

A study by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies estimated that the annual gap between revenues and the investment needed to improve highway and transit systems was about $105 billion in 2007, and will increase to $134 billion in 2017 under current trends.

Projected shortfalls in revenue led the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a report issued in January 2008, to call for an increase of as much as 40 cents a gallon in the gas tax, phased in over five years.

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations, which supports a fuel tax increase as long as the money goes to highway projects, said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

Transportation is responsible for about a third of all U.S. carbon emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Traffic congestion wastes an estimated 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year. Less congestion would reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said.

Bottlenecks around the nation cost the trucking industry about 243 million lost truck hours and about $7.8 billion per year, according to the commission.

___

On the Net:

http://financecommission.dot.gov/index.htm

Comments

[plages]

Dear congress member, do not allow gas to fall below $3 a gallon, and take those tax dollars, and allow the greening of America to flourish!

[Denmark2]

This can be done intelligently but we need leadership and competence of a high order. Low income and rural folks (including farmers) can get tax credits through the tax code. In other words, it has to be progressive. The mileage charge could even be built into a "congestion" or peak times usage fee. Utilities are already doing this to reduce peak time draw on electricity. There is going to be some inconvenience but we can use energy where it is needed most and taxes can be reduced there, eg heating/cooling. Cities have to improve/build public transportation so that there is a cost and time incentive for people to use them. This has to be a multipronged overall Energy Strategy to reduce consumption of all fuels, even Green ones, because they are not free either and require constant upkeep etc. As it stands, we are quite wasteful and that will have to change.

[Denmark2]

Ohiomark:
You seem to think that name calling equals thoughtfulness a la Rush Limbaugh. And of course the obligatory "liberal" word thrown for good measure without even understanding the word. Why is it people like you are the first to stand in line for Govt. handouts? The point is that a careful balance of taxes (of various types) progressively applied accross income ranges and spent prudently, (no hand outs AND bail outs to Republican corporatists!) results in a society where strong incentives and a true emergency safety net is present to prevent a free fall to third world. You would find that the overall burden would be lower under this model. I am not saying all Democrats understand this either, but certainly the Republicans have sold all of you a bill of goods. Liberal thinking involves fiscal discipline along with the upkeep of a modern soceity. Every time you use any public facility (except the Pentagon) you are getting a good deal because everybody pays into it. If you had near zero taxes, (the Grover Nordquist tax nirvana) you would pay an arm and a leg, so to speak, because mathematically the money just cant be there. So the worn quote "lower rates result in more revenues" has to be examined carefully for details like the deficit explosion and IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund, creative accounting etc. etc.

[TheShadow]

This has got to be the worse idea that DC can think of. There are many people in rural America who have to commute great distances to go to work these days. Mass transit for rural America is not an option as it doesn't exist, and with jobs dissapearing fast, people will be traveling even gretarer distances to work. Farming will also take a big hit.
A windfall profits tax that would be used to fund solar, wind and other methods for power production both privately, and publicaly is what's needed here. After just comng back from Germany and Farnce this past week, it was interesting to see that they are way ahead of us on their energy production. The number of largescale windmills, and solar pannels on all kinds of structures was amazing to see. In addition to making personal energy production possible DC should also establish fair laws, and rates for utilities to buy back over generated power by those who do generate their own: Every house, if possible, should be an energy producing entity genreating power for the entire grid. There is way to much to write here, but that's just a start.

[PlugINCarsRule]

American's are left with the feeling they can't win either way! You conserve and you get penalized for that too? With all these bailouts in the billions why doesn't our nation see the need to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? I just read a book called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now by Jeff Wilson.I never realized it would only cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car.It cost only the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car at the average current electrical rates. Also that the electricity to charge the cars could be generated partially or totally by wind or solar generated electricity. If all gasoline cars,had plug-in electric drive trains,the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of N.D.a. Why don't we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come. Why not invest in setting up some alternative energy projects on a national basis, create clean cheap electricity, create millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and get out from under our dependence on foreign oil.What a win-win situation that would be.

[PKSSK]

Just did some research on this commission and the commissioners and found it to be a joke, as the credentials on the individuals involved are associated with nothing more than politics as usual and most are right wing. If this becomes an issue every tax payer in America should start screaming to their congressional representatives!!!!

[PKSSK]

Tax the profits of the oil magnates and the top 1% of elite in our country who have bankrupted our country yet seem to find the bailouts they need from congress. Also, can we get a list of the members on this so called commission who is recommending increasing gas taxes, because I want to know who wants take more money from the majority in this country (middle and lower class) to feed the coughers and salaries of the top 1% who have left our infrastructure to rot since the election of Reagan in 1980. Now they want more money from the taxpayers who have nothing more to give! Enough with this stupidity and corrupt ideaology of those on the right!!!

[ohiomark]

Only Democrats and Liberals seem to be under the illusion that raising taxes generates more revenue.

How many times does it need to be proven to you dummies that lower taxes generates higher revenues to the government?

[Phynx]

I'm all for low taxes, but mathematically, your logic seems a tad flawed. How exactly do they gain money by lowering taxes generate revenue from the gov't? You assume lowering the taxes will encourage consumption to make up for and exceed the money made by the tax hike? A gas tax isn't the best way to go around creating revenue true but somewhere along they are going to need to raise taxes, not lower them, to fund programs. Personally I'm a fan of luxury taxes. Higher taxes for 60'' televisions, hummers, diamond rings the size of a large beetle, etc. If we don't want to raise taxes on the rich, raise it on all the excess cr@p they buy.

[ohiomark]

It's very simple.

The "rich" folks that most liberals want tax to death, well most of them are business owners who might just hire more employees if their taxes were lower. This creates more taxpayers, thus more revenue to the government. Lower taxes will also give people more money to spend at those business'.

It works every time it's tried. The biggest problem is getting the politicans to stop spending.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/08/07/government-economics-why-lowering-taxes-means-more-revenue.php

[TJCole]

Tax Goldman Sachs, they pumped up the gas prices causing all of this...!