Dr. Guy wrote:

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.

I know that at least several issues are at play in Virginia, though I understand almost none of what really goes on there myself.

I do know that the civil remedial fees that are being attempted to be levied against abusive drivers (in-state only so far, not applicable to out-of-state drivers) are being levied because the state apparently can't find the money to fund road construction projects.  These fees were created as fees, rather than labelled as fines, because the state's laws say that money from fines must go toward specific ear-marks of other types: schools, education, etc.

So, if you are a reasonable, intelligent, individual and you expect that fines paid for your transgressions when driving on the road would help pay for roads, well, nope, sorry that won't happen.

As you get further North in Virginia, especially up near D.C. you find that the roadways are a friggin' mess.  There are just far too many vehicles on the road ways, spewing too much exhaust, and going no where because there are lines and lines of vehicles in front of those vehicles.  More roads are needed, but in order to build more roads you need to buy the land or take the land from the current owners (which still requires that you compensate them).  Then you have to get the materials for the roads and put those materials down to form the road which requires expensive labor to perform that dirty work.

In a recent article I put up a summary of just how much it costs - in tens of millions of dollars - to build sections of roadway.  Suffice it to say it ain't cheap.  More expensive in high cost of living areas such as Northern Virginia (NoVa is no where like Montana or South Dakota where you could lay down highway and keep rolling it out for next to nothing, relatively speaking).

Since the funds that go towards transportation are so carefully selected, the funds don't see the income levels that the state and local governments need to do the construction.  Plus there are the legal fights and expensive buy-outs for the people that don't want to give up their homes, or their back yards, to building roadways.   Which adds more to the costs of the roads, etc.

Like I said, I actually feel sorry for the Pols on this issue because the right thing likely is to go ahead and raise taxes, but getting tax increases past the public as that same public watches the price they pay for gallons of milk increase, and the price they pay for meat increasing, etc., isn't going to be easy.  Not to mention the fact that one persons unnecessary ear-mark for a road or bridge project is another persons absolute need, and well, you get the idea.

I'll offer another quick example here: look at the BRAC related spending going on near Ft. Meade Maryland, and Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.  Look at the BRAC related spending going on near Ft. Belvoir in Northern Virginia too.  In both states the states and feds have had to find money to build roads to handle increased traffic flow at these bases.  These bases are absorbing personnel and operations from other places and to do so they need to build these new entrances to the bases, new exit ramps off Parkways, etc.  These are all ear-marks that Babs Mik. and James Webb and co. would be slipping into spending bills.  To people in MN or MI, these are not necessary items, but to the people that live and work around these places, this spending isn't a waste at all and is absolutely vital.

Take those ear-marks away and you save a few pennies per dollar that is needed to help take care of the road systems in this country.

So, while it would be good to help eliminate ear-marks, the same old rules about one person's pork being another person's main meal still apply.

“Did it feel good?

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

Continue to burry your head. What I have said is true and just because so many on this Blog Site do not want to acknowledge the truth does not alter the truth.

We are not resolving the important issues that challenge our country. The number and size of the issues will swamp our ship if we do not soon deal with them effectively. We have spent another almost 7 years under Bush and the GOP controlled Congress fiddling while the issues that confront America got worse and move to a point of no return. Issues like ignoring our infrastructure, Energy, Social Security, Medicare, Immigration, The Iraq war and the terrible way we are dealing with Islamic terrorism and Education. NOT ONE of these major issues has gotten better. EVERY ONE has gotten MUCH worse over the past 7 years! Listen to the Comptroller General Mr. Walker.

I do know that the civil remedial fees that are being attempted to be levied against abusive drivers (in-state only so far, not applicable to out-of-state drivers) are being levied because the state apparently can't find the money to fund road construction projects. These fees were created as fees, rather than labelled as fines, because the state's laws say that money from fines must go toward specific ear-marks of other types: schools, education, etc.

You are a little behind the times.  To date, 3 GDCs have ruled the fees unconstitutional.  In other words, that boondoggle is going away!

But second, you still did not address why the 1.2b dollar surplus cannot be used for the roads (but to your credit, you did specify your lack of overall knowledge of the workings of the state).

And finally, just as an aside, I am surprised that more liberals are not at least reading and enjoying this.  To see a conservative, Terpfan1980, going for taxes and against the other conservatives is not an everyday occurance.  And other than Col Klink, none seem interested.  Could it be that you are destroying their ignorant bigotry about conservatives?  And they are in shock and denial?

Yeah, that's a myth many people sadly buy in to. Do you realize that an average woman walking in high heels puts more force per square inch on a sidewalk than a fully loaded truck does on a road?

The simple fact remains that the politicians prefer to spend money on sexy projects like new roads ahead of more boring projects like maintaining existing roads and bridges.

Seems you're a little slow on the uptake which is really no surprise. Take your meds, return to your padded cell, and keep your insane ideas to yourself. Bush isn't responsible for the ails of the world, get over it.

In other words, fuck off Gene, your insane ideology isn't welcome here.

"In a recent article I put up a summary of just how much it costs - in tens of millions of dollars - to build sections of roadway."

But in SimCity, it's $10 per square. Isn't that accurate? I mean, it is called 'SIM' City...

I feel lied to.

Some people are so damn paranoid. I wonder if he actually sleeps with himself?

Nah, I'd trust SimCity

Good question. I doubt it. He probably lies awake at night worrying that Bush is going to sneak in and slit his throat.

Dr. Guy burped and out this came:  (just funnin' with ya on the burped part )

You are a little behind the times. To date, 3 GDCs have ruled the fees unconstitutional. In other words, that boondoggle is going away!

Not that much behind the times, not much at all.  I know that a few courts there have, perhaps, jumped the gun a bit and decided that the fees are unconstitutional but yet another court found that they were constitutional and that the legislature met the legal hurdles for acting as they did when the fees were enacted.  So, whether the fees live or die remains to be seen as the case works through the courts, perhaps all the way up to the SCOTUS where the issue of equal protection could really be decided.

That's all beside the point though, as my point in raising the issue of the fees is that because of other requirements built-in to the laws in the good old Commonwealth, perhaps due to demands and bleeting of idiots like the Clueless One, or others like him, the funding for roadways has to be found somewhere other than the existing funding.  Existing funding that you recently saw as a surplus, but which -- if the Commonwealth is anything like the fine old state of Mary-land -- may not exist any more because the liberals in the state got their way and helped to spend it all on taking care of the priorities that they had for the state.  Priorities like public schools, health care for the poor and indigent (and in many cases in Virginia illegal aliens), and other health and welfare areas.

As I had said earlier, the priorities are going to come up different depending upon whom you ask, and that means that the state(s) have to work to find the money anywhere they can.

Personally I despise the idea of those abuser fees, with the possible exception of perhaps levying a $10,000 fine upon those caught driving while intoxicated and/or driving on a suspended license, but that is just me.

Virginia could raise gasoline taxes and re-write the laws so that the fines on motor vehicle violations will go directly to transportation needs.  The pols simply choose not to do that because they deemed it too much trouble and too difficult to accomplish.

Regardless, none of this really eliminates the needs of the states and/or federal government to raise more money or at the very least find new money to give to transportation by taking it from somewhere else.  You all know as well as I do that if the money is taken from somewhere else the bleeting one will be back writing another ream of articles about how other priorities aren't getting fully funded.  Priorities like FEMA for example, or like the Border Patrol.  Or a host of other areas that you'd be robbing several Peters from to pay the Pauls on the other side.  Either way, someone would be getting Dick-ed around.

Regarding this where Dr. Guy said:

But second, you still did not address why the 1.2b dollar surplus cannot be used for the roads (but to your credit, you did specify your lack of overall knowledge of the workings of the state).

Addressed somewhat above, but just to reiterate - I expect your state's 1.2b dollar surplus went the same place the money in this state went once Ehrlich was out of office.  Ehrlich left giving a warning that the state was facing a serious shortage of revenue, recommending again that slots gambling be allowed in the state.  Still hasn't happened and the Dems in Mary-land have opted to put off the tough choices for yet another year, spending down the over $1b that Ehrlich got saved up over his four year term.  (Reminder, he, Mr. Ehrlich, the Republican, came into office with over $1b in red-ink on the books when he got there and a dry rainy day fund there too.  That he was able to leave office with over $1b in the rainy day fund was truly amazing, but the liberals looked past that and voted in the current clown over here, the same clown that used to run Baltimore very badly )

 

The Clueless One blurted out:

We are not resolving the important issues that challenge our country.

Interesting that you say 'We' there.  Who is this We that you speak of Kemosabe?

Why is it that you wander into this discussion and say 'We' and yet every article you start goes right back blamin' and bashin' Bush.

Yes, I know you idiotically and moronically tried to claim not to be Bush bashin' in a recent article, but you are guilty as charged and really don't deserve to continue to have the valuable space and computing resources you use up on this site (but yet the very gracious hosts allow you to stay, I guess because it's cheaper than being taxed, or perhaps they look at your clueless self as a tax, I don't know...)

Doesn't matter really, as you are the last individual that has any right to complain about priorities as you've complained far too much about all of the priorities over the last many years.

You complained about attempts to address many issues because you were not happy with the solutions that were offered by George W. Bush, and as far as I'm concerned you forfeited your right to complain long ago.  Perhaps if you had offered even an ounce of support for anything that the current President had done, we'd give you the benefit of the doubt and actually consider what you write, but it is far too late for that, so again, as MasonM already told you, get back under your rock and let the adults talk here.

So, whether the fees live or die remains to be seen as the case works through the courts, perhaps all the way up to the SCOTUS where the issue of equal protection could really be decided.

Let's hope not!  It is a STATE issue after all

Addressed somewhat above, but just to reiterate - I expect your state's 1.2b dollar surplus went the same place the money in this state went once Ehrlich was out of office. Ehrlich left giving a warning that the state was facing a serious shortage of revenue, recommending again that slots gambling be allowed in the state.

Err, no.  This is not maryland minor.  It is still there, they just want to use it for a rainy day fund.  The state is sound.  The governor is defective.  But this is a CONSERVATIVE state (in some respects).  We do have a slush fund, and that surplus is now a part of it.  But instead of living within the means of the old budget, this Clinton wanna bee (scandal and all) wants to spend the surplus and then raise taxes before he acknowledges we had one!

For the record, you are always welcome here, and Mi casa et su Casa.  But leave your taxes back in taxachusettes south.

Terpfan1980 said:

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 grooves into the pavement, etc.

MasonM said:

Yeah, that's a myth many people sadly buy in to. Do you realize that an average woman walking in high heels puts more force per square inch on a sidewalk than a fully loaded truck does on a road?

While the force per square inch on the shoe may be more, there is no denying that the roadways are getting grooved and riden to pieces.  I-495/I-95 (the D.C. Beltway) is horribly grooved between the new Wilson bridge spans and the I-95 exits toward Baltimore.  Thanks to changes in materials and construction processes that have resulted in the road surfaces not lasting as long as when they were first built with concrete decades ago the road surfaces are showing much more wear and tear than ever before.  More pot holes, more grooves, more cracks in the surfaces, and more obvious detioration of the roadways than ever before.  It certainly isn't happening just because of old age.  The fact that the roadways are taking about 4 - 8 times the traffic on them that they were designed for is a big factor.

I don't claim it's the trucks on the roadways.  At least not the hauling trucks.  It's the SUVs and heavier vehicles that ordinary U.S. citizens are driving around in.  Big fuel guzzlin' SUVs.  Ford Explorers.  Ford F-150.  Toyota Tundras.  Big Dodge Ram trucks.  Those sorts of vehicles.  Compared to a tiny little econo-box car, which one obviously wears more on the roads?

While the tables have been turning (thanks to higher fuel prices) more towards smaller cars again, there are still lots of big vehicles on the roadways and they are taking a heavy toll on them.

Dr. Guy answered about the abuser fees issues going through the court system (perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court):

Let's hope not! It is a STATE issue after all

One would think so, but then again the whole Equal Protection under the law thing comes from where???  U.S. Constitution and/or prior legal precedents, no?

Dr. Guy also said:

For the record, you are always welcome here, and Mi casa et su Casa. But leave your taxes back in taxachusettes south.

Thanks for the invite, I do appreciate it.

And really, I'd rather not have any taxes, or as few as are absolutely necessary, but I have to ask, and have taken the devils argument that perhaps raising the gas taxes isn't that bad an idea.  I'll frame it another way momentarily and in a new article and invite you and MasonM and everyone else to discuss more there.  Please come on over to Mi casa (or should I say My World) and check out that article in a little while, mmmm-kay?