Some excellent thoughts raised in your article Mason, but I'm not one of the usual suspects and I too believe that perhaps that taxes need to be raised to help pay for road and transportation needs in this country.

Looking at your example, the stadium built, or being built, in Minnesota, you would likely find that the stadium that is being funded with money that wouldn't exist if not for special taxes that were passed and levied to pay for the stadium.  In other words, the money that is being wasted on the stadium (if you believe it was/is being wasted) doesn't exist for usage for roads, schools, or any other of the state/local needs.

People in D.C. can look at the stadium that is being built for the Washington Nationals and can question why there is a bridge literally right next store to the stadium that is known as one of the bridges most in need of replacement.  The South Capitol Street bridge has looked like it would be falling down for years.  Before that there was the Woodrow Wilson bridge on I-495.  At least the Wilson brige is being replaced, but the replacement for it was decades later than it should have been, and has cost billions more than it would have if it was replaced earlier.

Fact of the matter, roads and transportation costs are supposed to be paid by gasoline taxes and other fees levied on transportation (airline transportation as an example).  The money goes into the transportation trust fund and can only be spent on transportation needs.  Not schools, not stadiums, not medicare, not medicaid, nor anything else.

And fact of the matter, as an article I wrote (which apparently led to the Clueless Old Liberal waking up to write some articles of his own on the topic) noted, the transportation trust fund is basically running in a deficit and not being funded with enough money to keep up with our needs.

Gasoline taxes aren't adjusted for inflation automatically, and haven't been adjusted in years.  The amount of money, when compared to the amount of miles and usage the people that drive in the U.S.A. just doesn't compare to what it used to when the gasoline taxes were last adjusted.  Instead of tens of billions going into the transportation trust fund to cover tens of billions of repair and upkeep (and new building), we have tens of billions going into the trust fund for hundreds of billions in needs.

We should cut out unnecessary items, and should concentrate on repairing the roads we drive on, but at the same time the right answer in many cases is to build new roads and those cost more than repairing existing roadways.

While I really don't want to pay more in gas taxes myself, a small raise in the gasoline tax, and then having the tax indexed for inflation, that would pay for more roads and quicker and better repairs for the roads we drive on wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree that the money used for the stadium wasn't actually out of the transportation fund, and that example isn't ideal, but taxpayers are in fact footing the lion's share of the cost. It's still tax dollars that could have been better spent.

Where priorities are truly falling short is in building new roads and other transportation such as a light rail in Minneapolis that connects a mall to downtown, when they aren't maintaining the system already in place.

I refuse to accept the idea that they need to take even more money away from us until they can properly manage the money they are already getting and can prove they really do need more instead of simply spending the money they have on the right things.

In the end maybe more is needed, maybe not, but until the current funds are spent properly giving them more is like giving more crack to a junkie hoping it will make them sober again.

I refuse to accept the idea that they need to take even more money away from us until they can properly manage the money they are already getting and can prove they really do need more instead of simply spending the money they have on the right things.

I agree. The government is a professional waste machine, and giving them more money will not solve any problems.

Where priorities are truly falling short is in building new roads and other transportation such as a light rail in Minneapolis that connects a mall to downtown, when they aren't maintaining the system already in place. I refuse to accept the idea that they need to take even more money away from us until they can properly manage the money they are already getting and can prove they really do need more instead of simply spending the money they have on the right things.

I agree completely with yourself and others in this regard, that the priorities need to be right to begin with, but setting these priorities is never easy.

I don't want to give the Pols a pass here, but I know in the D.C. area there are always fights to get more money to extend the Metro system into areas it didn't already go to.  That happens even though the system needs lots and lots of money just for upkeep on the existing tracks and stations (and railcars, etc.).  Some people can look at those cries and plans for building new stations (as an example, plans to run track out to Tysons Corner, an uppity shopping district with high class shopping mall(s), etc.) and demand that no building be done there until after more is spent to fix the existing system but, ya know what?  running new track to Tysons could help to spur ridership of the mass transit system and help to get thosands of cars off the already crowded roadways, saving thousands of gallons of gasoline each year (which, uh, yeah, by the way would mean even less gasoline tax money coming into government coffers.  A nice little negative unintended consequence of helping to save the environment and keep from importing more fuel) and helping to keep the air in the area cleaner.

In the Tysons Corner/Northern Virginia area air quality is a huge concern, and getting more people to ride Metro, a system that uses electricity to power the rail cars, would be a great thing.  Getting cars off the road there and helping to speed traffic along for those that would still be forced to drive for various reasons is a good thing.  So, who is really to say that building out Metro to serve that area is really not a priority?

Personally, I'd like to see Metro built out more into areas of Prince Georges County, MD.  Out into Bowie and Crofton, MD.  Into areas where thousands more cars would come off the roads.  But again, there would be unintended consequences of less gasoline tax coming in, over crowding of the metro trains and eventually there would be the need for billions of dollars to go to Metro to cover the up-keep of the system as it just gets bigger and bigger.

Sure the costs to ride the system could be increased and the riders could be forced to help pay more which should help to keep the system fiscally solvent and self sustaining, but there are unintended consequences with that too as you'd force people back into cars and away from Metro when the costs got too unbalanced.

Like I said, there are no easy answers.  We do need our priorities right, and giving money to the problem just to give money is stupid.  But, I do believe that we have serious issues with how much money we are collecting for transportation needs.  Like a lot of other things money related in this country our Pols haven't indexed the taxes that are raised to account for inflation, and by not doing so they are stuck facing a tax increase that they must vote on whenever one is necessary.  That is something they really don't want to do.  If, however, they had already set the taxes up to index for inflation, then we would probably already have seen many automatic tax increases that would have helped feed the transportation trust fund and kept it completely solvent.  That would also likely have had the side effect of helping to push even more drivers away from larger vehicles and towards more fuel efficient vehicles, and that too isn't such a bad thing.  (Despite my own feelings that I'd rather be driving a Ford Explorer than a Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift type vehicle.)

You mix stones and lemons when you talk about the money for the stadium and the bridge repairs. The issue is that the infrastructure, which includes far more then just bridges, was built as much as 100 years ago. It has been providing essential functions and is in need of major repair or in many cases replacement. That is not taking place.

If the Civil Engineers are correct and the magnitude of the needed repairs is almost $2 Trillion dollars, it will take a massive infusion of added tax dollars no matter how well we manage our resources. We have not increased the Fed Highway tax rate for decades. The fact is we have been using the roads and bridges and have 70,000 bridges alone in need of work or replacement. Taking the position that Bush took of NO NEW TAXES will not work!

Up to now indexing them for inflation hasn't been necessary due to the ever increasing number of vehicles on the road every year, and thus more of that tax revenue coming in. There are now more vehicles on the roads than every before, which of course is why our thirst for fuels is higher than ever before.

You are correct that there are no easy answers, and I certainly don't pretend otherwise. But I still maintain that before saying "Please sir, may I have some more." they'd damn well best shape up and prove that they can be responsible with what they're already getting.

Each and every comment you make here has already been addressed, so I assume you posted here merely to practice your inane use of the bold letter function.

Did it feel good?

Take your meds and go back to your padded cell, actual sane grown ups are talking here.

I do not know the inner workings of Mn, but I can tell you that something is very wrong in this state.  When we have the largest tax increase in history - and then run over a billion dollar surplus, and then they come back and want another tax increase on top of that (and the surplus).

Perhaps we are doing too well in conserving fuel, which in turn is reducing the gas tax.  But then when you are taxing cars when bouth, licenses each year, and taxes upon taxes upon taxes to own and operate a vehicle, it is time to stop thinking you can squirrell the money you get from one source into pet pork, while demanding ever higher and higher taxes to pay for the needs of the society.

I agree, it is not a lack of money (taxes), but an incompetance and indeed even a scandal that money is wasted on feel good things that accomplish little or nothing at the expense of the primary duty of the states.

The purpose of the government is not to try to bring money to their state, not to bring more jobs to the state, but to take the pooled money of the individual tax payers to create services that everyone needs but no-one can afford by themselves. That is, roads, fire and police protection, upkeep of the military, parks, and other non-exclusive property. That's why people agree to pay taxes and that's why the government is given the money. If the government would function in that way instead of how it is now, the money would not be wasted the way it is now.

Yup.

Yeah, too bad it doesn't work that way huh?

Well, you know, I learned about that in Macroeconomics class. And we all know the difference between macroeconomists and microeconomists.

The A?

Terpfan1980 said:

Like I said, there are no easy answers. We do need our priorities right, and giving money to the problem just to give money is stupid. But, I do believe that we have serious issues with how much money we are collecting for transportation needs. Like a lot of other things money related in this country our Pols haven't indexed the taxes that are raised to account for inflation, and by not doing so they are stuck facing a tax increase that they must vote on whenever one is necessary. That is something they really don't want to do.

MasonM said:

Up to now indexing them for inflation hasn't been necessary due to the ever increasing number of vehicles on the road every year, and thus more of that tax revenue coming in. There are now more vehicles on the roads than every before, which of course is why our thirst for fuels is higher than ever before.

The only problem with the idea that there are more and more vehicles on the roads is that those same vehicles add that much more to the abuse and use that the roads must take and give up.  More vehicles means more weight, which runs more groves into the pavement, etc.  Heavier vehicles do the same, and there for a good while everybody and their mothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers were driving around in SUVs that were even bigger than what was originally envisioned to be driving on the road ways.

MasonM added:

You are correct that there are no easy answers, and I certainly don't pretend otherwise. But I still maintain that before saying "Please sir, may I have some more." they'd damn well best shape up and prove that they can be responsible with what they're already getting.

Agreed.  It would be nice to see the money that is collected get spent on needs rather than wants, and it would also be smart to have the money spent on real long term solutions, rather than patches upon patches, but I doubt that will ever change because it costs too darn much to do the job right the first time (in the eyes of the Pols and bean counters) when compared to simply paying for patches and doing the same thing each successive year.

MasonM retorted towards the Clueless Old Liberal:

Take your meds and go back to your padded cell, actual sane grown ups are talking here.

Now that is the type of answer that Clueless deserves.  Well down.  Bravo!  Good show.