Monday, April 07, 2008

Paleolithic demands for greater gas taxes from the Big Lug.

Today, Governor Culver bravely endorsed higher gas taxes. Apparently the steady escalation of gasoline and diesel prices have finally produced what we free market advocates always knew it would, reduced consumption of gasoline and diesel. That’s what conservatives call conservation-less consumption without any government action at all, how existential to be sure.

It seems that three bucks a gallon triggered Iowans collective gag reflex and we are actually driving fewer miles. One consequence of conservation is a reduction of fuel tax revenue. It, of course, makes sense; as we purchase fewer gallons of gas the State’s per gallon based tax revenue diminishes in a linear relationship to the decline in gallons purchased.

Gagging is, however, not the only human reflex. When confronted with any social question the Democrat response is to simply raise taxes. Since the Governor is responsible for safe roads and bridges, and since maintaining roads and bridges requires a large union labor force that can actually return a share of the money spent on roads and bridge repair and maintenance directly and immediately to his very own political needs, Gov. Culver naturally wants to maintain the safety of Iowa’s roads and bridges through repair, reconstruction and maintenance. A diminishing road fund naturally imperils the Governors laudable goal of repairing, reconstructing and maintaining Iowa’s roads.

Gov. Culver’s response is as reflexive as that of primordial life crawling from the water towards the benevolent and invigorating Sun, although elevation of tax revenue, rather than the miracle of life, is the gubernatorial impulse.

Perhaps some thought should be given to eliminating tasks from the State’s list that are not as important as maintaining safe roads before we afflict the body politic with a most regressive sales tax on a necessary commodity like gasoline? Believe me, TRS could find that money faster than Murray Blum did for Dave Kovic back in ’93 if I could sit with Dave Vaudt, a red pen and a case of Mountain Dew.

In all fairness, there is certain courage in the Governor’s lack of ingenuity. Asking people who have already suffered the diminished lifestyle that is reflected by less driving to offset their savings by paying higher gas taxes seems rather odius ab populus on its face.

Will we Republicans recognize the public’s animosity to gas taxes to create a viable evolutionary alternative to our Governor’s paleo-liberal demand for more taxes?


Anonymous said...

I keep hearing the Republican Farm Bureau calling for the gas tax increase? Oh yeah - they don't pay taxes on their fuel.

vlad the impaler said...

The government makes more on a gallon of gas than the evil oil companies.

Anonymous said...

You have a point. Better to let the bridges fall and the potholes grow than to maintain the roads where we burn the gas.---Spotlight

vlad the impaler said...

There is a simple way to fix the roads:


The problem is, the only group that is more incompetent than the Democrats are the Republicans.

bgunzy said...

Well, farmers don't pay fuel tax on off-road diesel (just like construction companies), but we do pay fuel tax when we haul the crops to town in trucks and semis. I probably spend more in on-road fuel than off-road for my operation.

I too was surprised that the IFBF supported the tax. Yes, infrastructure needs to be kept up, but can we not have a better way to solve this?

I like the David Vaudt/Red Pen/Mt Dew approach myself...seeing Vaudt jacked up on Mt Dew would be quite interesting, if not a bit scary! :)

Art A Layman said...


Let's see. Rising gas prices cause a decrease in demand for gas, creating all sorts of environmental benefits. It would seem a good thing.

Now, looking closely, an increase in gas taxes will increase gas prices, etc., etc., and so on.....Where's the beef?

If we assume that the price of oil will continue to rise and that there is a price point at which demand falls off precipitously then isn't it better that your government receive a bigger share of that price rather than the profits of corporations?